Southampton City Council chiefs could slash thousands from Hythe Ferry subsidy

Daily Echo: The Hythe Ferry The Hythe Ferry

OPERATORS of a popular ferry route have pledged to stay afloat after civic chiefs announced plans to slash thousands of pounds in subsidies.

Hythe Ferry, which links the Waterside with Southampton, relies on £50,000 in taxpayer-funded handouts every year.

But up to £7,000 of that could be sunk without trace if Southampton City Council goes ahead with planned efficiency savings for next year.

The remainder of the grant comes from Hampshire County Council, and the authority has ringfenced its share of the cash.

Ferry director Peter Lay said: “It is unhelpful and the money is important.

“But we have been running the service through two world wars and the Great Depression and I am sure that we can weather the difficult economic climate we are facing.

“I would say to people please, please, please consider using the ferry whenever they can.”

About 500,000 people use the service every year, with subsidies accounting for about one passenger per crossing.

Councillor Warwick Payne, leisure spokesman for the council, said the decision to axe the subsidy was not yet set in stone as extra funding has become available from central Government.

He added: “As we decide which services may be suitable for extra cash we will aim to announce these as soon as possible.”

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:09am Sat 2 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.
Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do. aldermoorboy

10:55am Sat 2 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.
As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses
.
Over to you ...........
.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.[/p][/quote]As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses . Over to you ........... . Lone Ranger.

11:12am Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.
As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses
.
Over to you ...........
.
More to the point is as they are going down hill like every where else in the country, they will take us with them and could end up costing us much more in the long run than we would be saving.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.[/p][/quote]As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses . Over to you ........... .[/p][/quote]More to the point is as they are going down hill like every where else in the country, they will take us with them and could end up costing us much more in the long run than we would be saving. southy

3:05pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Pikey Pete says...

Why is this subsidised in the first place.?

Pardon the pun. But if it cant stay afloat like a normal business let it sink..!!!

Bet many other businesses out there would like 50k per year freebie..!!
Why is this subsidised in the first place.? Pardon the pun. But if it cant stay afloat like a normal business let it sink..!!! Bet many other businesses out there would like 50k per year freebie..!! Pikey Pete

3:52pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Zeo says...

Just bring back the train passenger service from Fawley to Southampton.
Just bring back the train passenger service from Fawley to Southampton. Zeo

5:19pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

**** Pete wrote:
Why is this subsidised in the first place.?

Pardon the pun. But if it cant stay afloat like a normal business let it sink..!!!

Bet many other businesses out there would like 50k per year freebie..!!
I'm sure the additional traffic to and from, plus the all-day parking of the extra commuters won't be a problem for Southampton.
[quote][p][bold]**** Pete[/bold] wrote: Why is this subsidised in the first place.? Pardon the pun. But if it cant stay afloat like a normal business let it sink..!!! Bet many other businesses out there would like 50k per year freebie..!![/p][/quote]I'm sure the additional traffic to and from, plus the all-day parking of the extra commuters won't be a problem for Southampton. Torchie1

5:28pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.
As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses
.
Over to you ...........
.
Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.[/p][/quote]As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses . Over to you ........... .[/p][/quote]Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ?? Lone Ranger.

5:48pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Zeo wrote:
Just bring back the train passenger service from Fawley to Southampton.
Wasn't there talk of opening up the railway a couple of years back?
[quote][p][bold]Zeo[/bold] wrote: Just bring back the train passenger service from Fawley to Southampton.[/p][/quote]Wasn't there talk of opening up the railway a couple of years back? IronLady2010

6:34pm Sat 2 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.
As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses
.
Over to you ...........
.
Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??
Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated.
the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.[/p][/quote]As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses . Over to you ........... .[/p][/quote]Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??[/p][/quote]Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated. the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line? loosehead

6:36pm Sat 2 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Look at it properly, no ferry more cars more cars in council car parks more revenue for Williams to keep for his pet projects.
I do agree this is the Hythe Ferry so why isn't Hythe funding it solely?
Look at it properly, no ferry more cars more cars in council car parks more revenue for Williams to keep for his pet projects. I do agree this is the Hythe Ferry so why isn't Hythe funding it solely? loosehead

6:40pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

loosehead wrote:
Look at it properly, no ferry more cars more cars in council car parks more revenue for Williams to keep for his pet projects.
I do agree this is the Hythe Ferry so why isn't Hythe funding it solely?
Maybe a compromise? Hythe Comes under New Forest District Council, split the funding and SCC still make a saving.

I'd guess the ferry is mainly used by residents from NFDC so funding could easily be shared.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Look at it properly, no ferry more cars more cars in council car parks more revenue for Williams to keep for his pet projects. I do agree this is the Hythe Ferry so why isn't Hythe funding it solely?[/p][/quote]Maybe a compromise? Hythe Comes under New Forest District Council, split the funding and SCC still make a saving. I'd guess the ferry is mainly used by residents from NFDC so funding could easily be shared. IronLady2010

7:50pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.
As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses
.
Over to you ...........
.
Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??
Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated.
the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line?
I know exactly how this was proposed thanks loosehead ....... But i wanted the explanation from your Tory friend ... who i guessed never had any idea at all.
.
No i wasnt attacking anyone ...... Just proof that he knew what he was on about .... But quite clearly he doesnt.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.[/p][/quote]As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses . Over to you ........... .[/p][/quote]Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??[/p][/quote]Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated. the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line?[/p][/quote]I know exactly how this was proposed thanks loosehead ....... But i wanted the explanation from your Tory friend ... who i guessed never had any idea at all. . No i wasnt attacking anyone ...... Just proof that he knew what he was on about .... But quite clearly he doesnt. Lone Ranger.

7:59pm Sat 2 Feb 13

sotonbusdriver says...

Ferry director Peter Lay said: “It is unhelpful and the money is important.

“But we have been running the service through two world wars and the Great Depression and I am sure that we can weather the difficult economic climate we are facing.


WHAT A LOAD OF CODS WALLOP..... White Horse Ferries only took ownership of the ferries in the past 10-20 years... During the periods Peter Lay mentioned the Company that ran the Hythe Ferry, was General Estates... Not White Horse... Since White Horse has taken over the ferries have been run down and poorly maintained....
Ferry director Peter Lay said: “It is unhelpful and the money is important. “But we have been running the service through two world wars and the Great Depression and I am sure that we can weather the difficult economic climate we are facing. WHAT A LOAD OF CODS WALLOP..... White Horse Ferries only took ownership of the ferries in the past 10-20 years... During the periods Peter Lay mentioned the Company that ran the Hythe Ferry, was General Estates... Not White Horse... Since White Horse has taken over the ferries have been run down and poorly maintained.... sotonbusdriver

9:02pm Sat 2 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.
As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses
.
Over to you ...........
.
Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??
Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated.
the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line?
I know exactly how this was proposed thanks loosehead ....... But i wanted the explanation from your Tory friend ... who i guessed never had any idea at all.
.
No i wasnt attacking anyone ...... Just proof that he knew what he was on about .... But quite clearly he doesnt.
Do I take from that I know what I'm talking about on this issue?
I'm in a good mood today as England beat Scotland & it was nearly euphoric but Wigan equalised so you admitting I've got it right on this subject is like the Icing on the cake.
Have a nice weekend
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.[/p][/quote]As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses . Over to you ........... .[/p][/quote]Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??[/p][/quote]Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated. the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line?[/p][/quote]I know exactly how this was proposed thanks loosehead ....... But i wanted the explanation from your Tory friend ... who i guessed never had any idea at all. . No i wasnt attacking anyone ...... Just proof that he knew what he was on about .... But quite clearly he doesnt.[/p][/quote]Do I take from that I know what I'm talking about on this issue? I'm in a good mood today as England beat Scotland & it was nearly euphoric but Wigan equalised so you admitting I've got it right on this subject is like the Icing on the cake. Have a nice weekend loosehead

11:56pm Sat 2 Feb 13

stay local says...

Can some explain?? If you live in Hythe and waterside Southampton city council is helping you meet the cot of getting to work in the city by subsidising the ferry. If you live in Woolston (part of Southampton city) the same council is charging you to cross a bridge to get to work?? This is discrimination!
Can some explain?? If you live in Hythe and waterside Southampton city council is helping you meet the cot of getting to work in the city by subsidising the ferry. If you live in Woolston (part of Southampton city) the same council is charging you to cross a bridge to get to work?? This is discrimination! stay local

12:29am Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

stay local wrote:
Can some explain?? If you live in Hythe and waterside Southampton city council is helping you meet the cot of getting to work in the city by subsidising the ferry. If you live in Woolston (part of Southampton city) the same council is charging you to cross a bridge to get to work?? This is discrimination!
You have the choice of going via Northam, free of tolls.
[quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: Can some explain?? If you live in Hythe and waterside Southampton city council is helping you meet the cot of getting to work in the city by subsidising the ferry. If you live in Woolston (part of Southampton city) the same council is charging you to cross a bridge to get to work?? This is discrimination![/p][/quote]You have the choice of going via Northam, free of tolls. IronLady2010

1:12am Sun 3 Feb 13

WalkingOnAWire says...

True enough, Iron Lady. But really, what we could still do with is this:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=ul2DYr1iD
lw

"16p a throw"(!)
True enough, Iron Lady. But really, what we could still do with is this: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=ul2DYr1iD lw "16p a throw"(!) WalkingOnAWire

2:58am Sun 3 Feb 13

scattymal says...

Well my favourite subject had Dibden Bay Container terminal come along part of the deal was a better infrastructure. There was talk of opening up the railway again, talk of a dedicated ferry service (knowing peeps would comne over from town to work) and a better road network. Ho hum what we could have had.
If the ferry sinks (sorry for the pun) that will be part of my day out scupperred when going to footy. Little ferry ride, pint in the Platform, chicken balty pie and pint at ground, nuver pint in Platform and little ferry ride home. Sad aren't I.
Well my favourite subject had Dibden Bay Container terminal come along part of the deal was a better infrastructure. There was talk of opening up the railway again, talk of a dedicated ferry service (knowing peeps would comne over from town to work) and a better road network. Ho hum what we could have had. If the ferry sinks (sorry for the pun) that will be part of my day out scupperred when going to footy. Little ferry ride, pint in the Platform, chicken balty pie and pint at ground, nuver pint in Platform and little ferry ride home. Sad aren't I. scattymal

7:49am Sun 3 Feb 13

loosehead says...

scattymal wrote:
Well my favourite subject had Dibden Bay Container terminal come along part of the deal was a better infrastructure. There was talk of opening up the railway again, talk of a dedicated ferry service (knowing peeps would comne over from town to work) and a better road network. Ho hum what we could have had.
If the ferry sinks (sorry for the pun) that will be part of my day out scupperred when going to footy. Little ferry ride, pint in the Platform, chicken balty pie and pint at ground, nuver pint in Platform and little ferry ride home. Sad aren't I.
So once again short sighted NIMBY's have ruined the day?
I don't know how they can still call it Dibden "BAY" as the BAY is filled in isn't it?
the work & the advantages the container depot/port could have bought to the waterside far out weighed the reasons they gave not to build it.
they said heavy lorries ? No the train would have taken the strain around to Southampton & then the containers would have continued on or been off loaded & put onto trains & the same thing would have happened for export.
but why do watersiders (Hythe Marina) expect Southampton to subsidise their ferry service?
[quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: Well my favourite subject had Dibden Bay Container terminal come along part of the deal was a better infrastructure. There was talk of opening up the railway again, talk of a dedicated ferry service (knowing peeps would comne over from town to work) and a better road network. Ho hum what we could have had. If the ferry sinks (sorry for the pun) that will be part of my day out scupperred when going to footy. Little ferry ride, pint in the Platform, chicken balty pie and pint at ground, nuver pint in Platform and little ferry ride home. Sad aren't I.[/p][/quote]So once again short sighted NIMBY's have ruined the day? I don't know how they can still call it Dibden "BAY" as the BAY is filled in isn't it? the work & the advantages the container depot/port could have bought to the waterside far out weighed the reasons they gave not to build it. they said heavy lorries ? No the train would have taken the strain around to Southampton & then the containers would have continued on or been off loaded & put onto trains & the same thing would have happened for export. but why do watersiders (Hythe Marina) expect Southampton to subsidise their ferry service? loosehead

9:34am Sun 3 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.
As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses
.
Over to you ...........
.
Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??
Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated.
the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line?
I know exactly how this was proposed thanks loosehead ....... But i wanted the explanation from your Tory friend ... who i guessed never had any idea at all.
.
No i wasnt attacking anyone ...... Just proof that he knew what he was on about .... But quite clearly he doesnt.
Do I take from that I know what I'm talking about on this issue?
I'm in a good mood today as England beat Scotland & it was nearly euphoric but Wigan equalised so you admitting I've got it right on this subject is like the Icing on the cake.
Have a nice weekend
Dont think i said that your explanation was correct .........
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.[/p][/quote]As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses . Over to you ........... .[/p][/quote]Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??[/p][/quote]Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated. the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line?[/p][/quote]I know exactly how this was proposed thanks loosehead ....... But i wanted the explanation from your Tory friend ... who i guessed never had any idea at all. . No i wasnt attacking anyone ...... Just proof that he knew what he was on about .... But quite clearly he doesnt.[/p][/quote]Do I take from that I know what I'm talking about on this issue? I'm in a good mood today as England beat Scotland & it was nearly euphoric but Wigan equalised so you admitting I've got it right on this subject is like the Icing on the cake. Have a nice weekend[/p][/quote]Dont think i said that your explanation was correct ......... Lone Ranger.

11:39am Sun 3 Feb 13

andysaints007 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.
As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses
.
Over to you ...........
.
Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??
Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated.
the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line?
I know exactly how this was proposed thanks loosehead ....... But i wanted the explanation from your Tory friend ... who i guessed never had any idea at all.
.
No i wasnt attacking anyone ...... Just proof that he knew what he was on about .... But quite clearly he doesnt.
Do I take from that I know what I'm talking about on this issue?
I'm in a good mood today as England beat Scotland & it was nearly euphoric but Wigan equalised so you admitting I've got it right on this subject is like the Icing on the cake.
Have a nice weekend
Dont think i said that your explanation was correct .........
Don't waste your time arguing with 'the moan ranger' loosehead ! Surely you must know by now he is a 24 carat d*ckhead !
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge council management with IOW and save millions as the Tories were going to do.[/p][/quote]As you are so very vocal on this subject perhaps, you could explain to me, exactly how this was to work as i am not too sure that i fully understand what was on offer. Why didnt it go ahead and how much was going to be saved over what period of time.Did it involve job losses . Over to you ........... .[/p][/quote]Still no response then .. .... Wonder why ??[/p][/quote]Okay each council were cutting Senior managers . we cut one they keep their one & he oversees both council & so on until all services are amalgamated. the saving on those top managerial positions mount up to the millions & in the industrial/political dispute were exactly what the Union was calling for ie;cuts at the top I thought a guy with your intelligence would have known exactly how it worked or are you just attacking some one else who doesn't tow the lone Ranger line?[/p][/quote]I know exactly how this was proposed thanks loosehead ....... But i wanted the explanation from your Tory friend ... who i guessed never had any idea at all. . No i wasnt attacking anyone ...... Just proof that he knew what he was on about .... But quite clearly he doesnt.[/p][/quote]Do I take from that I know what I'm talking about on this issue? I'm in a good mood today as England beat Scotland & it was nearly euphoric but Wigan equalised so you admitting I've got it right on this subject is like the Icing on the cake. Have a nice weekend[/p][/quote]Dont think i said that your explanation was correct .........[/p][/quote]Don't waste your time arguing with 'the moan ranger' loosehead ! Surely you must know by now he is a 24 carat d*ckhead ! andysaints007

11:47am Sun 3 Feb 13

Zeo says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Zeo wrote:
Just bring back the train passenger service from Fawley to Southampton.
Wasn't there talk of opening up the railway a couple of years back?
It's still in the consultation stage and auditing of whats required to bring it back to mixed passenger/freight standards i.e. signals, track, stations and so forth.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeo[/bold] wrote: Just bring back the train passenger service from Fawley to Southampton.[/p][/quote]Wasn't there talk of opening up the railway a couple of years back?[/p][/quote]It's still in the consultation stage and auditing of whats required to bring it back to mixed passenger/freight standards i.e. signals, track, stations and so forth. Zeo

1:31pm Sun 3 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Zeo wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Zeo wrote:
Just bring back the train passenger service from Fawley to Southampton.
Wasn't there talk of opening up the railway a couple of years back?
It's still in the consultation stage and auditing of whats required to bring it back to mixed passenger/freight standards i.e. signals, track, stations and so forth.
Would have happened a lot quicker if they'd gone ahead with the container port
[quote][p][bold]Zeo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeo[/bold] wrote: Just bring back the train passenger service from Fawley to Southampton.[/p][/quote]Wasn't there talk of opening up the railway a couple of years back?[/p][/quote]It's still in the consultation stage and auditing of whats required to bring it back to mixed passenger/freight standards i.e. signals, track, stations and so forth.[/p][/quote]Would have happened a lot quicker if they'd gone ahead with the container port loosehead

9:37pm Sun 3 Feb 13

beiroot says...

It's a Ltd Company.Can I get a grant for my transport company? 50K would save me from insolvency.
It's a Ltd Company.Can I get a grant for my transport company? 50K would save me from insolvency. beiroot

10:31pm Sun 3 Feb 13

scattymal says...

loosehead wrote:
scattymal wrote: Well my favourite subject had Dibden Bay Container terminal come along part of the deal was a better infrastructure. There was talk of opening up the railway again, talk of a dedicated ferry service (knowing peeps would comne over from town to work) and a better road network. Ho hum what we could have had. If the ferry sinks (sorry for the pun) that will be part of my day out scupperred when going to footy. Little ferry ride, pint in the Platform, chicken balty pie and pint at ground, nuver pint in Platform and little ferry ride home. Sad aren't I.
So once again short sighted NIMBY's have ruined the day? I don't know how they can still call it Dibden "BAY" as the BAY is filled in isn't it? the work & the advantages the container depot/port could have bought to the waterside far out weighed the reasons they gave not to build it. they said heavy lorries ? No the train would have taken the strain around to Southampton & then the containers would have continued on or been off loaded & put onto trains & the same thing would have happened for export. but why do watersiders (Hythe Marina) expect Southampton to subsidise their ferry service?
Being a watersider for 26 years (originally from Northam) I don't agree with Soton Council helping out the Hythe Ferry company. Unfortunately the ferry company doesn't help itself. It could make a bit more money if it didn't stop running so early on a weekend night so that people could get into town have a night out and get back to the waterside say around midnight. But last ferry back is about 22:00 ish I think. As someone suggested maybe NFDC could put teir hand in their pocket but on the other hand its a private company so why should they. I can see us loosing it soon.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: Well my favourite subject had Dibden Bay Container terminal come along part of the deal was a better infrastructure. There was talk of opening up the railway again, talk of a dedicated ferry service (knowing peeps would comne over from town to work) and a better road network. Ho hum what we could have had. If the ferry sinks (sorry for the pun) that will be part of my day out scupperred when going to footy. Little ferry ride, pint in the Platform, chicken balty pie and pint at ground, nuver pint in Platform and little ferry ride home. Sad aren't I.[/p][/quote]So once again short sighted NIMBY's have ruined the day? I don't know how they can still call it Dibden "BAY" as the BAY is filled in isn't it? the work & the advantages the container depot/port could have bought to the waterside far out weighed the reasons they gave not to build it. they said heavy lorries ? No the train would have taken the strain around to Southampton & then the containers would have continued on or been off loaded & put onto trains & the same thing would have happened for export. but why do watersiders (Hythe Marina) expect Southampton to subsidise their ferry service?[/p][/quote]Being a watersider for 26 years (originally from Northam) I don't agree with Soton Council helping out the Hythe Ferry company. Unfortunately the ferry company doesn't help itself. It could make a bit more money if it didn't stop running so early on a weekend night so that people could get into town have a night out and get back to the waterside say around midnight. But last ferry back is about 22:00 ish I think. As someone suggested maybe NFDC could put teir hand in their pocket but on the other hand its a private company so why should they. I can see us loosing it soon. scattymal

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