Explanations demanded on Labour-run authority’s splitting of £5.8m windfall fund

Daily Echo: Council leader Richard Williams Council leader Richard Williams

The man in charge of Southampton City Council has been forced to defend plans to spend £500,000 of a Government windfall.

The huge lump sum has been earmarked for the council leader’s “Getting Our Economy Moving” fund for Councillor Richard Williams to support creative industries, energy-saving initiatives, apprenticeships and internships.

It comes after the Labour-run authority learned it was receiving £5.8m in a one-off Westminster windfall and set about deciding how the money should be spent.

Tory opponents have called for a full explanation of the proposed leader’s fund, which comes as the council bids to slash £20m from its budget in the city’s worst cuts ever.

The Conservative group’s finance spokesman Cllr John Hannides said: “I think all the groups seeing increases in charges will want to make sure that every penny is spent wisely and for the benefit of everyone in the city. They have got reason to expect an explanation as to how this money is going to be used.

“I think any amount of money does require clear explanation as to its intended use – especially at this time when we are seeing reductions in services that people rely on.”

Last night Cllr Williams said a large proportion of the £500,000 would be spent on bringing forward a scheme with energy companies.

Called the Energy Company Obligation, it is designed to dramatically cut fuel bills for homes and create local jobs in fitting better insulation and solar panels. He said: “It is one of our priorities to get the economy moving and the green industry is one of the few areas that are growing.”

As reported, the council also wants to use part of the £5.8m windfall to reduce controversial cuts to library hours. Funding will also be put back into some youth services until they can run independently.

The authority has also come under fire for setting aside £40,000 to keep the mayor’s chauffeured car.

Meanwhile, £500,000 has been earmarked as a safeguard in case the council’s annual Government handout is worse next year.

A “transition fund” of £1m has also been set aside for major changes to children’s social services and reducing the number of city youngsters ending up in care.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:34pm Thu 31 Jan 13

southy says...

All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.
All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is. southy

12:45pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Red1918 says...

Absolutely right, Southy. This is nothing more than a massive slush fund for the Leader to spend on any vanity project that catches his imagination. It would not be so bad if he were not so utterly inept, so the chances of it being value for money are around zero
Also on the subject of cuts, the salt bins in my area were, understandably, emptied during the recent cold spell by local residents doing a bit of self help. It is just as well the weather has turned milder instead of another freeze because we are still waiting for SCC to refill them. Still I guess the New Labour Group has higher priorities like finding the money to save the Mayoral Car from the axe, rather than addressing an urgent matter of public safety.
Absolutely right, Southy. This is nothing more than a massive slush fund for the Leader to spend on any vanity project that catches his imagination. It would not be so bad if he were not so utterly inept, so the chances of it being value for money are around zero Also on the subject of cuts, the salt bins in my area were, understandably, emptied during the recent cold spell by local residents doing a bit of self help. It is just as well the weather has turned milder instead of another freeze because we are still waiting for SCC to refill them. Still I guess the New Labour Group has higher priorities like finding the money to save the Mayoral Car from the axe, rather than addressing an urgent matter of public safety. Red1918

12:45pm Thu 31 Jan 13

oldboy67 says...

he will not need to buy southy any laxitive that for sure
he will not need to buy southy any laxitive that for sure oldboy67

1:12pm Thu 31 Jan 13

freefinker says...

Headline - ‘Council chief defends putting aside £500K for leader's projects.’

Response – Well, he would; wouldn’t he? (with thanks to Mandy Rice-Davies)
Headline - ‘Council chief defends putting aside £500K for leader's projects.’ Response – Well, he would; wouldn’t he? (with thanks to Mandy Rice-Davies) freefinker

1:21pm Thu 31 Jan 13

George4th says...

Williams and his council are a busted flush...............
..........
Williams and his council are a busted flush............... .......... George4th

1:26pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.
Yeh, because that's what you would do isn't it?

Of course you would...

Do Socialists pay more for champagne to clear the conscious?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.[/p][/quote]Yeh, because that's what you would do isn't it? Of course you would... Do Socialists pay more for champagne to clear the conscious? Shoong

1:27pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Maine Lobster says...

George4th wrote:
Williams and his council are a busted flush............... ..........
Not as busted as Smith's!
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Williams and his council are a busted flush............... ..........[/p][/quote]Not as busted as Smith's! Maine Lobster

1:37pm Thu 31 Jan 13

George4th says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
George4th wrote:
Williams and his council are a busted flush............... ..........
Not as busted as Smith's!
Williams and his cronies have been an unmitigated disaster! They have gone beyond the word "incompetent"!

Williams and his cronies only got in because their best mates in the Unions plotted and schemed in the most underhand way and people like you support this kind of behaviour? Shame on you...........
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Williams and his council are a busted flush............... ..........[/p][/quote]Not as busted as Smith's![/p][/quote]Williams and his cronies have been an unmitigated disaster! They have gone beyond the word "incompetent"! Williams and his cronies only got in because their best mates in the Unions plotted and schemed in the most underhand way and people like you support this kind of behaviour? Shame on you........... George4th

1:37pm Thu 31 Jan 13

dunenuf says...

As ever money to slush around with no real end point - just flash some cash to City College + Solent for students to look like they have a real job. Rather than support real education improvements leading to real work andsolid futures. How about the merging Education Chiefs job - be serious and make a lasting difference not moving deckchairs on this Titanic loving council!!
As ever money to slush around with no real end point - just flash some cash to City College + Solent for students to look like they have a real job. Rather than support real education improvements leading to real work andsolid futures. How about the merging Education Chiefs job - be serious and make a lasting difference not moving deckchairs on this Titanic loving council!! dunenuf

2:08pm Thu 31 Jan 13

southy says...

George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
George4th wrote:
Williams and his council are a busted flush............... ..........
Not as busted as Smith's!
Williams and his cronies have been an unmitigated disaster! They have gone beyond the word "incompetent"!

Williams and his cronies only got in because their best mates in the Unions plotted and schemed in the most underhand way and people like you support this kind of behaviour? Shame on you...........
Don't you think the Tory Cronies plotted and schemed in the most underhand way to try and keep the Torys in
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Williams and his council are a busted flush............... ..........[/p][/quote]Not as busted as Smith's![/p][/quote]Williams and his cronies have been an unmitigated disaster! They have gone beyond the word "incompetent"! Williams and his cronies only got in because their best mates in the Unions plotted and schemed in the most underhand way and people like you support this kind of behaviour? Shame on you...........[/p][/quote]Don't you think the Tory Cronies plotted and schemed in the most underhand way to try and keep the Torys in southy

2:20pm Thu 31 Jan 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense. FoysCornerBoy

3:11pm Thu 31 Jan 13

George4th says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.[/p][/quote]The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now. They are clearly not fit for purpose..... George4th

3:26pm Thu 31 Jan 13

freefinker says...

George4th wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.

No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.

That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.[/p][/quote]The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now. They are clearly not fit for purpose.....[/p][/quote].. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you. No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community. That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring. freefinker

3:39pm Thu 31 Jan 13

George4th says...

freefinker wrote:
George4th wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.

No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.

That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs!
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.[/p][/quote]The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now. They are clearly not fit for purpose.....[/p][/quote].. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you. No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community. That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.[/p][/quote]My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs! George4th

3:43pm Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
I like the idea of the Rugby World Cup.
Foyes one way he could help residents ( council) to save money on energy would be to lift the embargo on tenants having Solar panels installed.
If I could afford it I would now rip out my Gas heating & put in the new Electric heating system.
It's been developed to store power in cheap rate hours which is ideal for storing Solar energy.
the heaters then release the heat when you want so if you have Solar Panels it's free heating.
You can lease out the roofs to Solar companies so the Panels & installation is free.
If you've noticed the Tory Party isn't attacking Williams they're just asking him to clarify where the money is being spent
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.[/p][/quote]I like the idea of the Rugby World Cup. Foyes one way he could help residents ( council) to save money on energy would be to lift the embargo on tenants having Solar panels installed. If I could afford it I would now rip out my Gas heating & put in the new Electric heating system. It's been developed to store power in cheap rate hours which is ideal for storing Solar energy. the heaters then release the heat when you want so if you have Solar Panels it's free heating. You can lease out the roofs to Solar companies so the Panels & installation is free. If you've noticed the Tory Party isn't attacking Williams they're just asking him to clarify where the money is being spent loosehead

4:35pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Red1918 says...

loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
I like the idea of the Rugby World Cup.
Foyes one way he could help residents ( council) to save money on energy would be to lift the embargo on tenants having Solar panels installed.
If I could afford it I would now rip out my Gas heating & put in the new Electric heating system.
It's been developed to store power in cheap rate hours which is ideal for storing Solar energy.
the heaters then release the heat when you want so if you have Solar Panels it's free heating.
You can lease out the roofs to Solar companies so the Panels & installation is free.
If you've noticed the Tory Party isn't attacking Williams they're just asking him to clarify where the money is being spent
Of course, the Tories are attacking him. They are asking the question because they know he currently does not have a clue what the answer is. He could only parrot the generalitites voiced by FoysCornerBoy, with no costings and no idea what the targets would be or how they would be delivered. ie It is a slush fund. In the meantime the salt bins remain empty, but the Mayoral car has been saved!!!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.[/p][/quote]I like the idea of the Rugby World Cup. Foyes one way he could help residents ( council) to save money on energy would be to lift the embargo on tenants having Solar panels installed. If I could afford it I would now rip out my Gas heating & put in the new Electric heating system. It's been developed to store power in cheap rate hours which is ideal for storing Solar energy. the heaters then release the heat when you want so if you have Solar Panels it's free heating. You can lease out the roofs to Solar companies so the Panels & installation is free. If you've noticed the Tory Party isn't attacking Williams they're just asking him to clarify where the money is being spent[/p][/quote]Of course, the Tories are attacking him. They are asking the question because they know he currently does not have a clue what the answer is. He could only parrot the generalitites voiced by FoysCornerBoy, with no costings and no idea what the targets would be or how they would be delivered. ie It is a slush fund. In the meantime the salt bins remain empty, but the Mayoral car has been saved!!! Red1918

4:57pm Thu 31 Jan 13

freefinker says...

George4th wrote:
freefinker wrote:
George4th wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.

No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.

That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs!
.. as I said, 'so incredibly boring'.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.[/p][/quote]The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now. They are clearly not fit for purpose.....[/p][/quote].. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you. No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community. That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.[/p][/quote]My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs![/p][/quote].. as I said, 'so incredibly boring'. freefinker

5:06pm Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

Red1918 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
I like the idea of the Rugby World Cup.
Foyes one way he could help residents ( council) to save money on energy would be to lift the embargo on tenants having Solar panels installed.
If I could afford it I would now rip out my Gas heating & put in the new Electric heating system.
It's been developed to store power in cheap rate hours which is ideal for storing Solar energy.
the heaters then release the heat when you want so if you have Solar Panels it's free heating.
You can lease out the roofs to Solar companies so the Panels & installation is free.
If you've noticed the Tory Party isn't attacking Williams they're just asking him to clarify where the money is being spent
Of course, the Tories are attacking him. They are asking the question because they know he currently does not have a clue what the answer is. He could only parrot the generalitites voiced by FoysCornerBoy, with no costings and no idea what the targets would be or how they would be delivered. ie It is a slush fund. In the meantime the salt bins remain empty, but the Mayoral car has been saved!!!
But surely Williams would know what he wanted this money for wouldn't he?
where did he get the figure of £500,000 from if he doesn't know what he wants?
is it to pay for a scientific adviser from the same Uni that backed him on fortnightly collections?
i didn't read that in Cllr hannides question though?
[quote][p][bold]Red1918[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.[/p][/quote]I like the idea of the Rugby World Cup. Foyes one way he could help residents ( council) to save money on energy would be to lift the embargo on tenants having Solar panels installed. If I could afford it I would now rip out my Gas heating & put in the new Electric heating system. It's been developed to store power in cheap rate hours which is ideal for storing Solar energy. the heaters then release the heat when you want so if you have Solar Panels it's free heating. You can lease out the roofs to Solar companies so the Panels & installation is free. If you've noticed the Tory Party isn't attacking Williams they're just asking him to clarify where the money is being spent[/p][/quote]Of course, the Tories are attacking him. They are asking the question because they know he currently does not have a clue what the answer is. He could only parrot the generalitites voiced by FoysCornerBoy, with no costings and no idea what the targets would be or how they would be delivered. ie It is a slush fund. In the meantime the salt bins remain empty, but the Mayoral car has been saved!!![/p][/quote]But surely Williams would know what he wanted this money for wouldn't he? where did he get the figure of £500,000 from if he doesn't know what he wants? is it to pay for a scientific adviser from the same Uni that backed him on fortnightly collections? i didn't read that in Cllr hannides question though? loosehead

5:18pm Thu 31 Jan 13

bigfella777 says...

southy wrote:
All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.
It is, they are saving jobs in youth services,libraries,c
reating apprenticeships, create jobs in green industries and keep the mayors chauffeur.
Cant you read, are you thick or something?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.[/p][/quote]It is, they are saving jobs in youth services,libraries,c reating apprenticeships, create jobs in green industries and keep the mayors chauffeur. Cant you read, are you thick or something? bigfella777

5:54pm Thu 31 Jan 13

George4th says...

freefinker wrote:
George4th wrote:
freefinker wrote:
George4th wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.

No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.

That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs!
.. as I said, 'so incredibly boring'.
More like you choosing to bury your head in the sand! (A lot of people did that during the last government and look where we ended up!)
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.[/p][/quote]The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now. They are clearly not fit for purpose.....[/p][/quote].. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you. No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community. That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.[/p][/quote]My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs![/p][/quote].. as I said, 'so incredibly boring'.[/p][/quote]More like you choosing to bury your head in the sand! (A lot of people did that during the last government and look where we ended up!) George4th

5:58pm Thu 31 Jan 13

skin2000 says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.
Yeh, because that's what you would do isn't it?

Of course you would...

Do Socialists pay more for champagne to clear the conscious?
No
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.[/p][/quote]Yeh, because that's what you would do isn't it? Of course you would... Do Socialists pay more for champagne to clear the conscious?[/p][/quote]No skin2000

7:00pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

I would like a view of your paintings in the vault!
I would like a view of your paintings in the vault! Fatty x Ford Worker

7:07pm Thu 31 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

Williams has been faced with a horrible task. Not only does he have to do what is in the best interests of the City residents he also has to ensure he doesn't wind up the Unions as they'll start banging the fear of strike stick.

I have to agree with him that it isn't a good idea to throw all this money at saving jobs as come next years budget he'll still have to make those cuts so it would only be a short term fix and in the meantime we wasted the money.

It appears he has made a choice of balance, where he is putting some of the money into services and holding some back which can be used in the near future for improvements.

I'm no fan of a Labour Council, but I can understand why he is keeping some money back rather than chucking it at a short term solution for job cuts.
Williams has been faced with a horrible task. Not only does he have to do what is in the best interests of the City residents he also has to ensure he doesn't wind up the Unions as they'll start banging the fear of strike stick. I have to agree with him that it isn't a good idea to throw all this money at saving jobs as come next years budget he'll still have to make those cuts so it would only be a short term fix and in the meantime we wasted the money. It appears he has made a choice of balance, where he is putting some of the money into services and holding some back which can be used in the near future for improvements. I'm no fan of a Labour Council, but I can understand why he is keeping some money back rather than chucking it at a short term solution for job cuts. IronLady2010

7:25pm Thu 31 Jan 13

freefinker says...

George4th wrote:
freefinker wrote:
George4th wrote:
freefinker wrote:
George4th wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions.

I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea.

I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about

Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched.

Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.
The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now.
They are clearly not fit for purpose.....
.. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you.

No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community.

That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.
My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs!
.. as I said, 'so incredibly boring'.
More like you choosing to bury your head in the sand! (A lot of people did that during the last government and look where we ended up!)
.. far from it.

I removed my political blinkers decades ago; the all-round view I now get is so much more satisfying. You should try it; then perhaps your oh-so restricted Blue view will be so much less tunnel-versioned and so much more enlightened.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Hang on a bit, you folk! Let's be sure we know where this £500k is going before rushing to any rash conclusions. I think that investing some of this money in local apprenticeships and internships for young people and others affected by job losses (e.g. Fords, Jessops, Blockbuster etc.), for example, might be quite a good idea. I also think that it would be sensible to ensure that there is sufficient slack for key projects that promote employment in the City's creative industries (e.g. ensuring that Southampton beats off stiff competition from Brighton to land St Mary's as a Rugby 2015 world cup venue). Then there's the new Arts Centre and continued support for the Sea City museum to think about Er.... and energy-efficiency schemes that save local residents money on their fuel bills don't strike me as too far fetched. Keeping back 10% of the extra money identified (leaving a mere £15 million to find from the government's cut in grant) for investing in the economy makes good sense.[/p][/quote]The thing that has people riled up is all the lies - what was said before Labour got elected and what Labour are saying now. They are clearly not fit for purpose.....[/p][/quote].. ah, I see. It's just a tribalism thing with you. No comment on what FoysCornerBoy actually said - the only one so far to analyse the good this injection of cash into this fund could possibly bring to individuals and the community. That there is so very little actual political or fiscal difference between the Red and Blue tribes, just makes reading most of the twaddle above so incredibly boring.[/p][/quote]My comment was valid given how Labour said they would spend the money BEFORE being elected and how they are spending money NOW! People like me watched the Union circus before Labour was elected - have seen what Labour said they would do when elected. From the moment they walked into power they have been totally confused, both within their own party (e.g. Morrell leaving withing days!) and their clear inability to administer the finances of Southampton City - they are a bunch of amateurs![/p][/quote].. as I said, 'so incredibly boring'.[/p][/quote]More like you choosing to bury your head in the sand! (A lot of people did that during the last government and look where we ended up!)[/p][/quote].. far from it. I removed my political blinkers decades ago; the all-round view I now get is so much more satisfying. You should try it; then perhaps your oh-so restricted Blue view will be so much less tunnel-versioned and so much more enlightened. freefinker

8:10pm Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Williams has been faced with a horrible task. Not only does he have to do what is in the best interests of the City residents he also has to ensure he doesn't wind up the Unions as they'll start banging the fear of strike stick.

I have to agree with him that it isn't a good idea to throw all this money at saving jobs as come next years budget he'll still have to make those cuts so it would only be a short term fix and in the meantime we wasted the money.

It appears he has made a choice of balance, where he is putting some of the money into services and holding some back which can be used in the near future for improvements.

I'm no fan of a Labour Council, but I can understand why he is keeping some money back rather than chucking it at a short term solution for job cuts.
Ironlady I go to church every Sunday.
the churches have been asked if they will help in running certain things( volunteers) as of now they're in discussions & haven't told us the congregation exactly what the council are looking for from the different religious bodies.
so it looks as if no matter how much extra money he gets this won't go to the services he has excluded this time & the others are on borrowed time until he gets the volunteers he needs.
when the Tories said they would get volunteers to run the libraries do you remember the kick up the Labour party & Unions made of it?
please don't be suckered in just remember what his party did & said in opposition & what they promised if elected & look what they're doing now
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Williams has been faced with a horrible task. Not only does he have to do what is in the best interests of the City residents he also has to ensure he doesn't wind up the Unions as they'll start banging the fear of strike stick. I have to agree with him that it isn't a good idea to throw all this money at saving jobs as come next years budget he'll still have to make those cuts so it would only be a short term fix and in the meantime we wasted the money. It appears he has made a choice of balance, where he is putting some of the money into services and holding some back which can be used in the near future for improvements. I'm no fan of a Labour Council, but I can understand why he is keeping some money back rather than chucking it at a short term solution for job cuts.[/p][/quote]Ironlady I go to church every Sunday. the churches have been asked if they will help in running certain things( volunteers) as of now they're in discussions & haven't told us the congregation exactly what the council are looking for from the different religious bodies. so it looks as if no matter how much extra money he gets this won't go to the services he has excluded this time & the others are on borrowed time until he gets the volunteers he needs. when the Tories said they would get volunteers to run the libraries do you remember the kick up the Labour party & Unions made of it? please don't be suckered in just remember what his party did & said in opposition & what they promised if elected & look what they're doing now loosehead

8:21pm Thu 31 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.

I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.

On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.

I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.

I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.

Simple :-)
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article. I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing. On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year. I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while. I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't. Simple :-) IronLady2010

9:04pm Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.

I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.

On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.

I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.

I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.

Simple :-)
He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article. I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing. On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year. I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while. I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't. Simple :-)[/p][/quote]He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections? most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea? I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about loosehead

9:10pm Thu 31 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.

I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.

On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.

I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.

I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.

Simple :-)
He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
I'm not disagreeing with you ;-)

But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen.

I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him!

I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article. I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing. On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year. I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while. I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't. Simple :-)[/p][/quote]He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections? most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea? I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about[/p][/quote]I'm not disagreeing with you ;-) But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen. I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him! I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City. IronLady2010

9:20pm Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.

I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.

On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.

I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.

I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.

Simple :-)
He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
I'm not disagreeing with you ;-)

But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen.

I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him!

I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.
We ( you & I ) were saying before the elections that the Unions had to much power yes?
Williams used that power for his own ends( to get elected) now he has to repay his benefactors & he's not finding it easy.
if he had come out against the strikes.if he hadn't part payed his benefactors by restoring some of the council workers pay he would be in a far stronger position than he is.
By allowing the Unions to use underhanded tactics to get Labour elected.
by allowing Unions to sit an advise on what the budget was is/was suicide as soon as he tries to do something with out them being consulted we get marches & the Unions crying foul.
I've never met Royston but I can see Williams ending up in exactly the same position as Royston & that is a target of Union hate,
thank you for talking to me( debating) as if I was an intelligent person & not a complete idiot as some do.
I admit I go off the article from time to time but have a nice nights sleep & see/talk to you tommorrow
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article. I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing. On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year. I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while. I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't. Simple :-)[/p][/quote]He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections? most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea? I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about[/p][/quote]I'm not disagreeing with you ;-) But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen. I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him! I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.[/p][/quote]We ( you & I ) were saying before the elections that the Unions had to much power yes? Williams used that power for his own ends( to get elected) now he has to repay his benefactors & he's not finding it easy. if he had come out against the strikes.if he hadn't part payed his benefactors by restoring some of the council workers pay he would be in a far stronger position than he is. By allowing the Unions to use underhanded tactics to get Labour elected. by allowing Unions to sit an advise on what the budget was is/was suicide as soon as he tries to do something with out them being consulted we get marches & the Unions crying foul. I've never met Royston but I can see Williams ending up in exactly the same position as Royston & that is a target of Union hate, thank you for talking to me( debating) as if I was an intelligent person & not a complete idiot as some do. I admit I go off the article from time to time but have a nice nights sleep & see/talk to you tommorrow loosehead

9:33pm Thu 31 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.

I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.

On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.

I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.

I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.

Simple :-)
He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
I'm not disagreeing with you ;-)

But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen.

I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him!

I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.
We ( you & I ) were saying before the elections that the Unions had to much power yes?
Williams used that power for his own ends( to get elected) now he has to repay his benefactors & he's not finding it easy.
if he had come out against the strikes.if he hadn't part payed his benefactors by restoring some of the council workers pay he would be in a far stronger position than he is.
By allowing the Unions to use underhanded tactics to get Labour elected.
by allowing Unions to sit an advise on what the budget was is/was suicide as soon as he tries to do something with out them being consulted we get marches & the Unions crying foul.
I've never met Royston but I can see Williams ending up in exactly the same position as Royston & that is a target of Union hate,
thank you for talking to me( debating) as if I was an intelligent person & not a complete idiot as some do.
I admit I go off the article from time to time but have a nice nights sleep & see/talk to you tommorrow
The Unions do have far too much influence when it comes to a Labour Council. So, let's be fair and say yes Williams sucked up to them during his campaign, but also give him credit for standing up to them right now.

He shouldn't have restored pay, this I agree with as it cost the jobs of others, but hey, that's what he promised the Unions and he don't want them on his back with another round of strikes.

I think Williams is a very clever man, he's working the Unions to his advantage, you see how they don't kick off and call a strike when he pee's them off? Now had Royston been in control the City would be in chaos for making the exact same decisions.

So Williams is infact using the Unions without them even realising it.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article. I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing. On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year. I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while. I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't. Simple :-)[/p][/quote]He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections? most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea? I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about[/p][/quote]I'm not disagreeing with you ;-) But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen. I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him! I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.[/p][/quote]We ( you & I ) were saying before the elections that the Unions had to much power yes? Williams used that power for his own ends( to get elected) now he has to repay his benefactors & he's not finding it easy. if he had come out against the strikes.if he hadn't part payed his benefactors by restoring some of the council workers pay he would be in a far stronger position than he is. By allowing the Unions to use underhanded tactics to get Labour elected. by allowing Unions to sit an advise on what the budget was is/was suicide as soon as he tries to do something with out them being consulted we get marches & the Unions crying foul. I've never met Royston but I can see Williams ending up in exactly the same position as Royston & that is a target of Union hate, thank you for talking to me( debating) as if I was an intelligent person & not a complete idiot as some do. I admit I go off the article from time to time but have a nice nights sleep & see/talk to you tommorrow[/p][/quote]The Unions do have far too much influence when it comes to a Labour Council. So, let's be fair and say yes Williams sucked up to them during his campaign, but also give him credit for standing up to them right now. He shouldn't have restored pay, this I agree with as it cost the jobs of others, but hey, that's what he promised the Unions and he don't want them on his back with another round of strikes. I think Williams is a very clever man, he's working the Unions to his advantage, you see how they don't kick off and call a strike when he pee's them off? Now had Royston been in control the City would be in chaos for making the exact same decisions. So Williams is infact using the Unions without them even realising it. IronLady2010

9:42pm Thu 31 Jan 13

loosehead says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article.

I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing.

On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year.

I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while.

I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't.

Simple :-)
He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections?
most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea?
I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about
I'm not disagreeing with you ;-)

But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen.

I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him!

I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.
We ( you & I ) were saying before the elections that the Unions had to much power yes?
Williams used that power for his own ends( to get elected) now he has to repay his benefactors & he's not finding it easy.
if he had come out against the strikes.if he hadn't part payed his benefactors by restoring some of the council workers pay he would be in a far stronger position than he is.
By allowing the Unions to use underhanded tactics to get Labour elected.
by allowing Unions to sit an advise on what the budget was is/was suicide as soon as he tries to do something with out them being consulted we get marches & the Unions crying foul.
I've never met Royston but I can see Williams ending up in exactly the same position as Royston & that is a target of Union hate,
thank you for talking to me( debating) as if I was an intelligent person & not a complete idiot as some do.
I admit I go off the article from time to time but have a nice nights sleep & see/talk to you tommorrow
The Unions do have far too much influence when it comes to a Labour Council. So, let's be fair and say yes Williams sucked up to them during his campaign, but also give him credit for standing up to them right now.

He shouldn't have restored pay, this I agree with as it cost the jobs of others, but hey, that's what he promised the Unions and he don't want them on his back with another round of strikes.

I think Williams is a very clever man, he's working the Unions to his advantage, you see how they don't kick off and call a strike when he pee's them off? Now had Royston been in control the City would be in chaos for making the exact same decisions.

So Williams is infact using the Unions without them even realising it.
Could the reason be why the unions aren't kicking off is because of the name Labour?
I don't think Royston could have done anything without the Unions kicking off besides becoming a Labour councillor.
I honestly believe the Unions & the poor workers are going to rue the day they didn't accept the Tory deal & went to war on the Tory council
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: I am not being sucked in, I am just commenting on what is in the above article. I don't hold a grudge and will gladly and openly say when I think Williams is doing the right or wrong thing. On this occasion I feel he is right not to throw money on saving a few jobs as a short term solution as those very same jobs will still go next year. I do believe Labour took control due to the makings of the Unions, but it's happened and we now have a Labour Council and regardless of what we think of that, they are here to stay for a while. I'm not just going to slate everything they do just because they are Labour, there will be times when I agree with them and times when I don't. Simple :-)[/p][/quote]He's saving ( for a year) certain youth clubs are these in areas that will be contested in the next bout of local elections? most of the good things being announced by the council were already put into action( started) under a tory council Ironlady can you tell me of one good Labour idea? I do know you won't be suckered in but you can only give this man so much rope the only problem is when he hangs so will the city & that's what I'm worried about[/p][/quote]I'm not disagreeing with you ;-) But, at the same time, I'm keeping an open mind. If Williams is going to make a huge mess of things, we can't stop him, it's going to happen. I feel he has a huge stick being wafted over his head and in a way, I feel for him! I don't think anyone wants to ruin our City.[/p][/quote]We ( you & I ) were saying before the elections that the Unions had to much power yes? Williams used that power for his own ends( to get elected) now he has to repay his benefactors & he's not finding it easy. if he had come out against the strikes.if he hadn't part payed his benefactors by restoring some of the council workers pay he would be in a far stronger position than he is. By allowing the Unions to use underhanded tactics to get Labour elected. by allowing Unions to sit an advise on what the budget was is/was suicide as soon as he tries to do something with out them being consulted we get marches & the Unions crying foul. I've never met Royston but I can see Williams ending up in exactly the same position as Royston & that is a target of Union hate, thank you for talking to me( debating) as if I was an intelligent person & not a complete idiot as some do. I admit I go off the article from time to time but have a nice nights sleep & see/talk to you tommorrow[/p][/quote]The Unions do have far too much influence when it comes to a Labour Council. So, let's be fair and say yes Williams sucked up to them during his campaign, but also give him credit for standing up to them right now. He shouldn't have restored pay, this I agree with as it cost the jobs of others, but hey, that's what he promised the Unions and he don't want them on his back with another round of strikes. I think Williams is a very clever man, he's working the Unions to his advantage, you see how they don't kick off and call a strike when he pee's them off? Now had Royston been in control the City would be in chaos for making the exact same decisions. So Williams is infact using the Unions without them even realising it.[/p][/quote]Could the reason be why the unions aren't kicking off is because of the name Labour? I don't think Royston could have done anything without the Unions kicking off besides becoming a Labour councillor. I honestly believe the Unions & the poor workers are going to rue the day they didn't accept the Tory deal & went to war on the Tory council loosehead

12:57am Fri 1 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.
Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light. Inform Al

1:21am Fri 1 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Inform Al wrote:
Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.
You make such a great point, well done!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.[/p][/quote]You make such a great point, well done! IronLady2010

2:31am Fri 1 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

8 hours of paperwork, if only Williams could appreciate that, luckily he has a team to do that, which we pay for!
8 hours of paperwork, if only Williams could appreciate that, luckily he has a team to do that, which we pay for! IronLady2010

6:35am Fri 1 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions. We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year. Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy. Have a good day. aldermoorboy

8:07am Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.
Funny I read the article exactly where did you get this information from as there was no complaining in the article?
Hannides was asking if Williams could be transparent & say how much & to where this money was going wasn't he?
You should watch the Andrew Marr show.Nick Clegg was on there he was asked if he felt the cuts were going to far?
his reply was because of the note found by Labour & the fact they didn't know how bad it was they couldn't stop the harsh cuts implemented by the out going Labour Government.
if they had known exactly what the finances were they would have stopped them & changed the cuts so not so many would have lost their jobs.
this comes from a Liberal Democrat not a Tory.
now back to this article! to close this story all Williams has to do is announce exactly what projects the money's going to & how much each one is going to receive & it's over unless your Mike Tucker
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.[/p][/quote]Funny I read the article exactly where did you get this information from as there was no complaining in the article? Hannides was asking if Williams could be transparent & say how much & to where this money was going wasn't he? You should watch the Andrew Marr show.Nick Clegg was on there he was asked if he felt the cuts were going to far? his reply was because of the note found by Labour & the fact they didn't know how bad it was they couldn't stop the harsh cuts implemented by the out going Labour Government. if they had known exactly what the finances were they would have stopped them & changed the cuts so not so many would have lost their jobs. this comes from a Liberal Democrat not a Tory. now back to this article! to close this story all Williams has to do is announce exactly what projects the money's going to & how much each one is going to receive & it's over unless your Mike Tucker loosehead

8:47am Fri 1 Feb 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts......

Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth.

Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham?

This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership.

This would save the taxpayer millions.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions. We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year. Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy. Have a good day.[/p][/quote]As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts...... Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth. Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham? This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership. This would save the taxpayer millions. FoysCornerBoy

11:40am Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

bigfella777 wrote:
southy wrote:
All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.
It is, they are saving jobs in youth services,libraries,c

reating apprenticeships, create jobs in green industries and keep the mayors chauffeur.
Cant you read, are you thick or something?
No but it seems you must be, or have a very poor memory, Even Red1918 as a better idea what is going on and what this money to be put aside is all about
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All of that money should be used to save jobs and wages and public service first then any thing left over should be put to one side, if there is any left over that is.[/p][/quote]It is, they are saving jobs in youth services,libraries,c reating apprenticeships, create jobs in green industries and keep the mayors chauffeur. Cant you read, are you thick or something?[/p][/quote]No but it seems you must be, or have a very poor memory, Even Red1918 as a better idea what is going on and what this money to be put aside is all about southy

11:57am Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
8 hours of paperwork, if only Williams could appreciate that, luckily he has a team to do that, which we pay for!
Williams is an estate agent, so he would be more use to doing 8 hours of paper work.

You also said
"The Unions do have far too much influence when it comes to a Labour Council. So, let's be fair and say yes Williams sucked up to them during his campaign, but also give him credit for standing up to them right now.

It also works the other way round, Bosses have to much influence with the Tory party who such up to them all the time and not just during there campaign they do it all the time.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: 8 hours of paperwork, if only Williams could appreciate that, luckily he has a team to do that, which we pay for![/p][/quote]Williams is an estate agent, so he would be more use to doing 8 hours of paper work. You also said "The Unions do have far too much influence when it comes to a Labour Council. So, let's be fair and say yes Williams sucked up to them during his campaign, but also give him credit for standing up to them right now. It also works the other way round, Bosses have to much influence with the Tory party who such up to them all the time and not just during there campaign they do it all the time. southy

12:15pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.
Funny I read the article exactly where did you get this information from as there was no complaining in the article?
Hannides was asking if Williams could be transparent & say how much & to where this money was going wasn't he?
You should watch the Andrew Marr show.Nick Clegg was on there he was asked if he felt the cuts were going to far?
his reply was because of the note found by Labour & the fact they didn't know how bad it was they couldn't stop the harsh cuts implemented by the out going Labour Government.
if they had known exactly what the finances were they would have stopped them & changed the cuts so not so many would have lost their jobs.
this comes from a Liberal Democrat not a Tory.
now back to this article! to close this story all Williams has to do is announce exactly what projects the money's going to & how much each one is going to receive & it's over unless your Mike Tucker
I don't have a political gripe one way or the other, so I am able to follow the news without excluding some of it because of partisan ideals. What I said in my post is well known to those of us that do not suffer from selective hearing. I am also def not a trade unionist, due to their selling themselves to the devil when Brown was chancellor to the exchequer
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Well, well. So much cr4p. The Tory gumment nicks ever so many £millions from the local gumment budget then the Tory mouthpiece complains at how the Labour group intends to use the few quid given back, and so many bleating Tory sheep will never see the light.[/p][/quote]Funny I read the article exactly where did you get this information from as there was no complaining in the article? Hannides was asking if Williams could be transparent & say how much & to where this money was going wasn't he? You should watch the Andrew Marr show.Nick Clegg was on there he was asked if he felt the cuts were going to far? his reply was because of the note found by Labour & the fact they didn't know how bad it was they couldn't stop the harsh cuts implemented by the out going Labour Government. if they had known exactly what the finances were they would have stopped them & changed the cuts so not so many would have lost their jobs. this comes from a Liberal Democrat not a Tory. now back to this article! to close this story all Williams has to do is announce exactly what projects the money's going to & how much each one is going to receive & it's over unless your Mike Tucker[/p][/quote]I don't have a political gripe one way or the other, so I am able to follow the news without excluding some of it because of partisan ideals. What I said in my post is well known to those of us that do not suffer from selective hearing. I am also def not a trade unionist, due to their selling themselves to the devil when Brown was chancellor to the exchequer Inform Al

12:42pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts......

Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth.

Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham?

This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership.

This would save the taxpayer millions.
I'm not a footie fan but what your saying is tantamount to treason in football fans eyes.
why not go further & return power back to Hampshire council?
Labour fought to make us a unilateral Authority telling us our rates would drop which of course was a lie.
that Labour council forgot exactly how many staff they would have to employ & how much that would put on the rates .
But please tell what's wrong with the Island deal?
the Tory council went into talks with several councils & the Island being the one where most monies could be saved so they opted for that deal or doesn't that make financial sense to you?
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions. We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year. Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy. Have a good day.[/p][/quote]As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts...... Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth. Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham? This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership. This would save the taxpayer millions.[/p][/quote]I'm not a footie fan but what your saying is tantamount to treason in football fans eyes. why not go further & return power back to Hampshire council? Labour fought to make us a unilateral Authority telling us our rates would drop which of course was a lie. that Labour council forgot exactly how many staff they would have to employ & how much that would put on the rates . But please tell what's wrong with the Island deal? the Tory council went into talks with several councils & the Island being the one where most monies could be saved so they opted for that deal or doesn't that make financial sense to you? loosehead

4:13pm Fri 1 Feb 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts......

Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth.

Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham?

This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership.

This would save the taxpayer millions.
I'm not a footie fan but what your saying is tantamount to treason in football fans eyes.
why not go further & return power back to Hampshire council?
Labour fought to make us a unilateral Authority telling us our rates would drop which of course was a lie.
that Labour council forgot exactly how many staff they would have to employ & how much that would put on the rates .
But please tell what's wrong with the Island deal?
the Tory council went into talks with several councils & the Island being the one where most monies could be saved so they opted for that deal or doesn't that make financial sense to you?
Really? Pray tell me which Councils were spoken to and what deals were brokered. Is there any record of all this or do you have access to privileged information?

I think returning Southampton to a two tier authority under Hampshire is nonsensical and goes against the general drift towards unitary authorities across England. I bet the good people of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport and Havant would vote for having the same powers as Southampton, Portsmouth and the Island, if only they were asked.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions. We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year. Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy. Have a good day.[/p][/quote]As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts...... Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth. Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham? This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership. This would save the taxpayer millions.[/p][/quote]I'm not a footie fan but what your saying is tantamount to treason in football fans eyes. why not go further & return power back to Hampshire council? Labour fought to make us a unilateral Authority telling us our rates would drop which of course was a lie. that Labour council forgot exactly how many staff they would have to employ & how much that would put on the rates . But please tell what's wrong with the Island deal? the Tory council went into talks with several councils & the Island being the one where most monies could be saved so they opted for that deal or doesn't that make financial sense to you?[/p][/quote]Really? Pray tell me which Councils were spoken to and what deals were brokered. Is there any record of all this or do you have access to privileged information? I think returning Southampton to a two tier authority under Hampshire is nonsensical and goes against the general drift towards unitary authorities across England. I bet the good people of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport and Havant would vote for having the same powers as Southampton, Portsmouth and the Island, if only they were asked. FoysCornerBoy

4:47pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions.
We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year.
Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy.
Have a good day.
As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts......

Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth.

Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham?

This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership.

This would save the taxpayer millions.
I'm not a footie fan but what your saying is tantamount to treason in football fans eyes.
why not go further & return power back to Hampshire council?
Labour fought to make us a unilateral Authority telling us our rates would drop which of course was a lie.
that Labour council forgot exactly how many staff they would have to employ & how much that would put on the rates .
But please tell what's wrong with the Island deal?
the Tory council went into talks with several councils & the Island being the one where most monies could be saved so they opted for that deal or doesn't that make financial sense to you?
Really? Pray tell me which Councils were spoken to and what deals were brokered. Is there any record of all this or do you have access to privileged information?

I think returning Southampton to a two tier authority under Hampshire is nonsensical and goes against the general drift towards unitary authorities across England. I bet the good people of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport and Havant would vote for having the same powers as Southampton, Portsmouth and the Island, if only they were asked.
but they nearly have those powers how else can eastleigh have fortnightly collections if they don't have that power?
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Good morning all, in my view Southampton council is there to serve the public, it would do that better without the unions. We the public should not pay for the unions in anyway, it is wrong. That is a £500,000 saving each year. Merge management with the IOW then we could reduce taxes that would help the economy. Have a good day.[/p][/quote]As this conversation is still going on, I thought I'd chuck in a few more thoughts...... Some people here keep banging on about merging City functions with the Isle of Wight. Why the Island? Surely it would make more sense to share services with places that have more in common with our City like - despite local football rivalries - Portsmouth. Better still why don't we revive the idea in the 1970s of a Solent Metropolitan Borough serving a population about the same size as Birmingham? This could be modeled on either the existing Partnership for Urban South Hampshire or - if people wanted to include the Isle of Wight - the Solent Local Economic Partnership. This would save the taxpayer millions.[/p][/quote]I'm not a footie fan but what your saying is tantamount to treason in football fans eyes. why not go further & return power back to Hampshire council? Labour fought to make us a unilateral Authority telling us our rates would drop which of course was a lie. that Labour council forgot exactly how many staff they would have to employ & how much that would put on the rates . But please tell what's wrong with the Island deal? the Tory council went into talks with several councils & the Island being the one where most monies could be saved so they opted for that deal or doesn't that make financial sense to you?[/p][/quote]Really? Pray tell me which Councils were spoken to and what deals were brokered. Is there any record of all this or do you have access to privileged information? I think returning Southampton to a two tier authority under Hampshire is nonsensical and goes against the general drift towards unitary authorities across England. I bet the good people of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport and Havant would vote for having the same powers as Southampton, Portsmouth and the Island, if only they were asked.[/p][/quote]but they nearly have those powers how else can eastleigh have fortnightly collections if they don't have that power? loosehead

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree