Protests at Civic Centre as council plans job and services cuts

Daily Echo: Campaigners protest last September against closure of Oaklands pool Campaigners protest last September against closure of Oaklands pool

TODAY is D-Day for the worst public service cuts in Southampton’s history.

Angry demonstrators including youngsters, library users, parents and union members are set to converge on the Civic Centre to protest against city council plans to slash £16.5m from its budget.

Along with opposition councillors they are expected to make emotional pleas to the Labour administration during the crunch budget meeting to think again.

However, with Labour in the majority their plans are expected to be voted through.

Despite the party members’ previous pledges to do all they could to stop job losses and avoid compulsory redundancies, 234 full-time equivalent positions will be lost out of the council’s 4,000 staff.

Park keepers, street cleaners, librarians, social workers and care managers are also among the casualties.

Council leader Councillor Richard Williams said: “This has been the most challenging budget I have ever been involved in.

“I don’t think local government has ever been here before. But my view is that people recognise this is a choice made by central Government.”

Under the budget plans children’s services will be hardest hit with £2.1m of cuts and 98 job losses planned.

The council’s residential children’s unit for traumatised eight to 12-yearolds, Our House, will close and the city’s youth service, which aims to create opportunities for 11 to 25-yearolds, will also be axed.

The budget for the city’s Sure Start children’s centres will also be cut by £1m a year.

An unexpected cash windfall of £5.8m from the Government saw the cuts reduced to £16.5m, with the rest of the windfall kept in reserve. It meant library opening hours will not be trimmed back so far while funding was put back into some youth services to tide them over until they could run themselves independently from next year.

The city’s districts were spared initial budget plans to introduce a 50p/hour rate in car parks, but business leaders have condemned the move to introduce evening city centre parking charges.

Older people are also set to be affected with a series of tax hikes.

The biggest financial blow will be the loss of the controversial ten per cent council tax discount brought in by the previous Tory administration, claimed by more than 8,000 households.

Charges for pest control and burying and cremating the dead will be hiked by five per cent.

Labour is also pushing ahead with its plans to remove bus subsides, threatening evening, Sunday and bank holiday services as well as routes to hospitals.

Tourism and heritage groups have slammed moves to shut the city’s tourism information and also the archaeology unit which safeguards the city’s rich past.

In their alternative budget the Liberal Democrats say they would lessen cuts to services to vulnerable people by using reserves.

Group leader Cllr Adrian Vinson says: “We can ease the pain for our most vulnerable citizens and we can safeguard the most essential community services, not just for this year, but for the next three years and beyond.

“The Labour administration’s budget is ironically conservative, squirreling away money for a rainy day when we are already in the eye of the storm.”

 

Comments (57)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:00am Wed 13 Feb 13

Pikey Pete says...

DONT WORRY.. I am sure they will all find jobs in the private sector Like Mr Cameron said. Probabaly at

Ford, Jessop, Hmv, in banking, and cloth retailers.

After all. You dry up spending power the jobs they supported go as well.

Instead of tax payers people now become tax consumers!!!

It cant last..Something has to give.
DONT WORRY.. I am sure they will all find jobs in the private sector Like Mr Cameron said. Probabaly at Ford, Jessop, Hmv, in banking, and cloth retailers. After all. You dry up spending power the jobs they supported go as well. Instead of tax payers people now become tax consumers!!! It cant last..Something has to give. Pikey Pete
  • Score: 0

8:02am Wed 13 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

8:03am Wed 13 Feb 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding.

The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today.

But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'?

I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles.

Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

8:31am Wed 13 Feb 13

Big Mac says...

Where's Southy when you need him?!
Where's Southy when you need him?! Big Mac
  • Score: 0

8:32am Wed 13 Feb 13

Taskforce 141 says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes.

Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes. Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse! Taskforce 141
  • Score: 0

8:33am Wed 13 Feb 13

sfby says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not.

Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not. Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law. sfby
  • Score: 0

8:51am Wed 13 Feb 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

sfby wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not.

Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.
That's one school of thought. I agree that paid officers should provide advice. It's when they use their powers to veto democratic debate that's more worrying.

There are also questions of consistency and impartiality of the 'professional' advice that councillors receive.

For instance the previous conservative administration borrowed heavily in support of large capital projects (purchase of 1 Guildhall Square, Sea City museum and the Arts Centre) where the anticipated private sector funding has failed to materialise. It would be interesting to know what the professional financial advice on these schemes from managers was and whether it was heeded.

I'd be equally interested in what legal advice was obtained when deciding to unlawfully and unilaterally cut the pay and conditions of Council staff. Had the unions persisted in (and won) their court claims, where would the Council have found the money for reinstatement (plus legal costs, natch)?
[quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not. Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.[/p][/quote]That's one school of thought. I agree that paid officers should provide advice. It's when they use their powers to veto democratic debate that's more worrying. There are also questions of consistency and impartiality of the 'professional' advice that councillors receive. For instance the previous conservative administration borrowed heavily in support of large capital projects (purchase of 1 Guildhall Square, Sea City museum and the Arts Centre) where the anticipated private sector funding has failed to materialise. It would be interesting to know what the professional financial advice on these schemes from managers was and whether it was heeded. I'd be equally interested in what legal advice was obtained when deciding to unlawfully and unilaterally cut the pay and conditions of Council staff. Had the unions persisted in (and won) their court claims, where would the Council have found the money for reinstatement (plus legal costs, natch)? FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

9:01am Wed 13 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Stop paying £500,000 each year for unions.
Merge management with the IOW saving £3m each year.
Reduce the number of cabinet members by 2 ( saving £22,000 each year, not much but their is one job saved.
Reduce management salaries to that of private industry.
Out source services where money can be saved.
Put the following first children, tax payers and the elderly.
Stop paying £500,000 each year for unions. Merge management with the IOW saving £3m each year. Reduce the number of cabinet members by 2 ( saving £22,000 each year, not much but their is one job saved. Reduce management salaries to that of private industry. Out source services where money can be saved. Put the following first children, tax payers and the elderly. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

9:08am Wed 13 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
We could always merge some services with the IOW.
.
Now perhaps you can explain how that will work as you were so keen to promote it.
.
Or perhaps you dont know ..... Either way i look forward toyour lng awaited respnse
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]We could always merge some services with the IOW. . Now perhaps you can explain how that will work as you were so keen to promote it. . Or perhaps you dont know ..... Either way i look forward toyour lng awaited respnse Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

9:09am Wed 13 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Foyscornerboy if the unions thought they would win they would have gone ahead. They did not because they new they would lose, the strikes were all political , why are they not striking now, because unions and Labour are the same.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politics and not a council run by the unions.
If the unions did not exist in Southampton, in my view we all would be happier and get better value for our money.
Foyscornerboy if the unions thought they would win they would have gone ahead. They did not because they new they would lose, the strikes were all political , why are they not striking now, because unions and Labour are the same. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politics and not a council run by the unions. If the unions did not exist in Southampton, in my view we all would be happier and get better value for our money. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

9:11am Wed 13 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Stop paying £500,000 each year for unions.
Merge management with the IOW saving £3m each year.
Reduce the number of cabinet members by 2 ( saving £22,000 each year, not much but their is one job saved.
Reduce management salaries to that of private industry.
Out source services where money can be saved.
Put the following first children, tax payers and the elderly.
Still havent expplained how it will work have you ......
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Stop paying £500,000 each year for unions. Merge management with the IOW saving £3m each year. Reduce the number of cabinet members by 2 ( saving £22,000 each year, not much but their is one job saved. Reduce management salaries to that of private industry. Out source services where money can be saved. Put the following first children, tax payers and the elderly.[/p][/quote]Still havent expplained how it will work have you ...... Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

9:20am Wed 13 Feb 13

Outside of the Box says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding.

The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today.

But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'?

I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles.

Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies.

If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased.

Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office.

As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda.

Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies. If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased. Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office. As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda. Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

9:21am Wed 13 Feb 13

sfby says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sfby wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not. Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.
That's one school of thought. I agree that paid officers should provide advice. It's when they use their powers to veto democratic debate that's more worrying. There are also questions of consistency and impartiality of the 'professional' advice that councillors receive. For instance the previous conservative administration borrowed heavily in support of large capital projects (purchase of 1 Guildhall Square, Sea City museum and the Arts Centre) where the anticipated private sector funding has failed to materialise. It would be interesting to know what the professional financial advice on these schemes from managers was and whether it was heeded. I'd be equally interested in what legal advice was obtained when deciding to unlawfully and unilaterally cut the pay and conditions of Council staff. Had the unions persisted in (and won) their court claims, where would the Council have found the money for reinstatement (plus legal costs, natch)?
Fair point, but in this case I believe there are caps on the levels of Prudential Borrowing, and it is illegal to exceed these - hence the advice that there is no point in debating the pro's and con's of what would be an illegal action.

While it would be entertaining, there would be little point in revisiting the decisions that led to the Council nearing the capping levels.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not. Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.[/p][/quote]That's one school of thought. I agree that paid officers should provide advice. It's when they use their powers to veto democratic debate that's more worrying. There are also questions of consistency and impartiality of the 'professional' advice that councillors receive. For instance the previous conservative administration borrowed heavily in support of large capital projects (purchase of 1 Guildhall Square, Sea City museum and the Arts Centre) where the anticipated private sector funding has failed to materialise. It would be interesting to know what the professional financial advice on these schemes from managers was and whether it was heeded. I'd be equally interested in what legal advice was obtained when deciding to unlawfully and unilaterally cut the pay and conditions of Council staff. Had the unions persisted in (and won) their court claims, where would the Council have found the money for reinstatement (plus legal costs, natch)?[/p][/quote]Fair point, but in this case I believe there are caps on the levels of Prudential Borrowing, and it is illegal to exceed these - hence the advice that there is no point in debating the pro's and con's of what would be an illegal action. While it would be entertaining, there would be little point in revisiting the decisions that led to the Council nearing the capping levels. sfby
  • Score: 0

9:40am Wed 13 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Lone Ranger, first I note you make no comment on my other suggestions.
Regarding merging management with the IOW, Southampton has 230,000 people the IOW 130,000, one management team could run both saving £3m per year, like the Tories were trying to do.
Tell your Labour friends to do it, then claim the glory.
Lone Ranger, first I note you make no comment on my other suggestions. Regarding merging management with the IOW, Southampton has 230,000 people the IOW 130,000, one management team could run both saving £3m per year, like the Tories were trying to do. Tell your Labour friends to do it, then claim the glory. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

10:02am Wed 13 Feb 13

huckit P says...

Where can we actually see the full council budget? Exactly what monies are paid in from tax and other services, plus funds from Central Government and then what money is paid out in salaries, subsidies etc.
Oh, and I notice that there are no senior council members on the list of redundancies - funny that!
Where can we actually see the full council budget? Exactly what monies are paid in from tax and other services, plus funds from Central Government and then what money is paid out in salaries, subsidies etc. Oh, and I notice that there are no senior council members on the list of redundancies - funny that! huckit P
  • Score: 0

10:10am Wed 13 Feb 13

dogbruce says...

Get rid of all Sure Starts that will save plenty .
Get rid of all Sure Starts that will save plenty . dogbruce
  • Score: 0

10:22am Wed 13 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, first I note you make no comment on my other suggestions.
Regarding merging management with the IOW, Southampton has 230,000 people the IOW 130,000, one management team could run both saving £3m per year, like the Tories were trying to do.
Tell your Labour friends to do it, then claim the glory.
Well after weeks of asking you have come up with a few numbers that debatable ..... Or shall we say inaccurate ....... and reduce management salaries to those of private industry ( Tories set these ) .... and a bit of out-sourcing ........ And that will save what exactly from the £16.5m cut from Pickles and his chums ??
.
You simply have no idea as to what is required.
.
The only saving grace is that a Tory council would have cut far more that what is being set-out today.
.
And i cant see anyone claiming that glory ........ At least you decided to do away with the name calling ... so far
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, first I note you make no comment on my other suggestions. Regarding merging management with the IOW, Southampton has 230,000 people the IOW 130,000, one management team could run both saving £3m per year, like the Tories were trying to do. Tell your Labour friends to do it, then claim the glory.[/p][/quote]Well after weeks of asking you have come up with a few numbers that debatable ..... Or shall we say inaccurate ....... and reduce management salaries to those of private industry ( Tories set these ) .... and a bit of out-sourcing ........ And that will save what exactly from the £16.5m cut from Pickles and his chums ?? . You simply have no idea as to what is required. . The only saving grace is that a Tory council would have cut far more that what is being set-out today. . And i cant see anyone claiming that glory ........ At least you decided to do away with the name calling ... so far Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

10:33am Wed 13 Feb 13

George4th says...

All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies.
(Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!)

>
Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!) George4th
  • Score: 0

10:35am Wed 13 Feb 13

mmsmarine says...

They all voted Labour in...so deal with it
They all voted Labour in...so deal with it mmsmarine
  • Score: 0

11:06am Wed 13 Feb 13

sfby says...

huckit P wrote:
Where can we actually see the full council budget? Exactly what monies are paid in from tax and other services, plus funds from Central Government and then what money is paid out in salaries, subsidies etc. Oh, and I notice that there are no senior council members on the list of redundancies - funny that!
It's all on the SCC website - drill down through "Decision Making" and all the papers for this evening's meeting are available.
[quote][p][bold]huckit P[/bold] wrote: Where can we actually see the full council budget? Exactly what monies are paid in from tax and other services, plus funds from Central Government and then what money is paid out in salaries, subsidies etc. Oh, and I notice that there are no senior council members on the list of redundancies - funny that![/p][/quote]It's all on the SCC website - drill down through "Decision Making" and all the papers for this evening's meeting are available. sfby
  • Score: 0

11:31am Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

Taskforce 141 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes.

Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse!
I hope not because i am honest
[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes. Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse![/p][/quote]I hope not because i am honest southy
  • Score: 0

11:31am Wed 13 Feb 13

bigfella777 says...

George4th wrote:
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
What absolute nonsense, somebody had to do the jobs and support our economy.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)[/p][/quote]What absolute nonsense, somebody had to do the jobs and support our economy. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

11:38am Wed 13 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

southy wrote:
Taskforce 141 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes.

Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse!
I hope not because i am honest
Yes you are Southy ..... But you are not a politician.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes. Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse![/p][/quote]I hope not because i am honest[/p][/quote]Yes you are Southy ..... But you are not a politician. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Foyscornerboy if the unions thought they would win they would have gone ahead. They did not because they new they would lose, the strikes were all political , why are they not striking now, because unions and Labour are the same.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politics and not a council run by the unions.
If the unions did not exist in Southampton, in my view we all would be happier and get better value for our money.
alder alder They Unions would not of lost, the Tory Council did not even get the backing from the city legal dept, they got told they where wrong, how wrong the council was even the legal dept went out on strike.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Foyscornerboy if the unions thought they would win they would have gone ahead. They did not because they new they would lose, the strikes were all political , why are they not striking now, because unions and Labour are the same. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politics and not a council run by the unions. If the unions did not exist in Southampton, in my view we all would be happier and get better value for our money.[/p][/quote]alder alder They Unions would not of lost, the Tory Council did not even get the backing from the city legal dept, they got told they where wrong, how wrong the council was even the legal dept went out on strike. southy
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

sfby wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not.

Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.
No they should not be making any decisions of the nature that they did, we elect people to make those decisions, managers should only avise those on couses of actions and never try to enforce it.
They are paid to do a job and that is it
[quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not. Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.[/p][/quote]No they should not be making any decisions of the nature that they did, we elect people to make those decisions, managers should only avise those on couses of actions and never try to enforce it. They are paid to do a job and that is it southy
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Taskforce 141 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes.

Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse!
I hope not because i am honest
Yes you are Southy ..... But you are not a politician.
well i am really lone, i do stand in elections, i am member to political party. its not a must to be elected into office to make you a politician
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes. Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse![/p][/quote]I hope not because i am honest[/p][/quote]Yes you are Southy ..... But you are not a politician.[/p][/quote]well i am really lone, i do stand in elections, i am member to political party. its not a must to be elected into office to make you a politician southy
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

George4th wrote:
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies.
(Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!)

>
Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)[/p][/quote]The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off, southy
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

sfby wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sfby wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not. Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.
That's one school of thought. I agree that paid officers should provide advice. It's when they use their powers to veto democratic debate that's more worrying. There are also questions of consistency and impartiality of the 'professional' advice that councillors receive. For instance the previous conservative administration borrowed heavily in support of large capital projects (purchase of 1 Guildhall Square, Sea City museum and the Arts Centre) where the anticipated private sector funding has failed to materialise. It would be interesting to know what the professional financial advice on these schemes from managers was and whether it was heeded. I'd be equally interested in what legal advice was obtained when deciding to unlawfully and unilaterally cut the pay and conditions of Council staff. Had the unions persisted in (and won) their court claims, where would the Council have found the money for reinstatement (plus legal costs, natch)?
Fair point, but in this case I believe there are caps on the levels of Prudential Borrowing, and it is illegal to exceed these - hence the advice that there is no point in debating the pro's and con's of what would be an illegal action.

While it would be entertaining, there would be little point in revisiting the decisions that led to the Council nearing the capping levels.
No its not illegal. what could happen is the government would send in a team to run the council, if the ruling body made a council bankrupt, which is very undemocratic
[quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not. Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.[/p][/quote]That's one school of thought. I agree that paid officers should provide advice. It's when they use their powers to veto democratic debate that's more worrying. There are also questions of consistency and impartiality of the 'professional' advice that councillors receive. For instance the previous conservative administration borrowed heavily in support of large capital projects (purchase of 1 Guildhall Square, Sea City museum and the Arts Centre) where the anticipated private sector funding has failed to materialise. It would be interesting to know what the professional financial advice on these schemes from managers was and whether it was heeded. I'd be equally interested in what legal advice was obtained when deciding to unlawfully and unilaterally cut the pay and conditions of Council staff. Had the unions persisted in (and won) their court claims, where would the Council have found the money for reinstatement (plus legal costs, natch)?[/p][/quote]Fair point, but in this case I believe there are caps on the levels of Prudential Borrowing, and it is illegal to exceed these - hence the advice that there is no point in debating the pro's and con's of what would be an illegal action. While it would be entertaining, there would be little point in revisiting the decisions that led to the Council nearing the capping levels.[/p][/quote]No its not illegal. what could happen is the government would send in a team to run the council, if the ruling body made a council bankrupt, which is very undemocratic southy
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding.

The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today.

But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'?

I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles.

Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies.

If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased.

Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office.

As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda.

Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them
Its not Illegal borrowing, every council as the right to borrow money from else where if they feel the need to be there.
So please take out the word illegal.
Check with Liverpool Council.

All that can happen is a council makes or looks it might make a council bankrupt. then the governmnet can send in a team to run it, vey very undemocratic of the government.
Also Don and Keith like the TUSC cares about the ordinary people and not the millionares that run this country.
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies. If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased. Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office. As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda. Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them[/p][/quote]Its not Illegal borrowing, every council as the right to borrow money from else where if they feel the need to be there. So please take out the word illegal. Check with Liverpool Council. All that can happen is a council makes or looks it might make a council bankrupt. then the governmnet can send in a team to run it, vey very undemocratic of the government. Also Don and Keith like the TUSC cares about the ordinary people and not the millionares that run this country. southy
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Taskforce 141 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes.

Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse!
I hope not because i am honest
You are only honest in that you believe your own rhetoric. but that really isn't honesty.

You've been caught out numerous times though. So you are actually lying again.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes. Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse![/p][/quote]I hope not because i am honest[/p][/quote]You are only honest in that you believe your own rhetoric. but that really isn't honesty. You've been caught out numerous times though. So you are actually lying again. Shoong
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Wed 13 Feb 13

George4th says...

southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies.
(Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!)

>
Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,
So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)[/p][/quote]The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,[/p][/quote]So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!). George4th
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies.
(Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!)

>
Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,
So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).
the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt.
once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)[/p][/quote]The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,[/p][/quote]So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).[/p][/quote]the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt. once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's. southy
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Wed 13 Feb 13

hulla baloo says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Taskforce 141 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes.

Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse!
I hope not because i am honest
Yes you are Southy ..... But you are not a politician.
At times he is, because when asked to answer a question, he waffles and never provides info to back up his claim. ;)
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes. Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse![/p][/quote]I hope not because i am honest[/p][/quote]Yes you are Southy ..... But you are not a politician.[/p][/quote]At times he is, because when asked to answer a question, he waffles and never provides info to back up his claim. ;) hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

The crisis facing local government at the moment is of its own making, at least in part. I worked for a local authority for over a decade and in that time the department I worked in nearly doubled in size. Its workload did not. Among the people I worked with there was no incentive for anyone to work over and above what was expected because to reward people for such effort would have been "unfair" to the downright lazy ones. There was what seemed like unlimited amounts of sick leave on offer, which many people fully exploited, and the notion of firing anyone on the grounds of incompetence was unheard of. At strategic level, so much time was wasted talking about work, rather than actually doing it - my how we loved meetings! Mission creep was rife and we largely did what we wanted, often according to the personal agendas of senior officers and elected members, rather than doing what needed to be done. We were forever looking at what we could be doing that we weren't doing, never at what we were doing that we should perhaps not be doing. Then the cuts came and redundancies followed. I was one of those affected.

So we need to look at what local government administration is for and what we want from it. To my mind it should be there to provide only those statutory services it alone can provide. Everything else should be done by someone else, if it's needed at all. The desperately sad situation facing staff in Southampton today and in other local authorities across the country has been brewing for years and has occurred because we have sleepwalked into allowing local authority administration to grow unchecked into a network of highly inefficient, unresponsive, inward-looking, eye-wateringly expensive monoliths. No doubt other people's experience of being on the inside of local authority administration is different. I just speak as I find and I have no political point to make.
The crisis facing local government at the moment is of its own making, at least in part. I worked for a local authority for over a decade and in that time the department I worked in nearly doubled in size. Its workload did not. Among the people I worked with there was no incentive for anyone to work over and above what was expected because to reward people for such effort would have been "unfair" to the downright lazy ones. There was what seemed like unlimited amounts of sick leave on offer, which many people fully exploited, and the notion of firing anyone on the grounds of incompetence was unheard of. At strategic level, so much time was wasted talking about work, rather than actually doing it - my how we loved meetings! Mission creep was rife and we largely did what we wanted, often according to the personal agendas of senior officers and elected members, rather than doing what needed to be done. We were forever looking at what we could be doing that we weren't doing, never at what we were doing that we should perhaps not be doing. Then the cuts came and redundancies followed. I was one of those affected. So we need to look at what local government administration is for and what we want from it. To my mind it should be there to provide only those statutory services it alone can provide. Everything else should be done by someone else, if it's needed at all. The desperately sad situation facing staff in Southampton today and in other local authorities across the country has been brewing for years and has occurred because we have sleepwalked into allowing local authority administration to grow unchecked into a network of highly inefficient, unresponsive, inward-looking, eye-wateringly expensive monoliths. No doubt other people's experience of being on the inside of local authority administration is different. I just speak as I find and I have no political point to make. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Wed 13 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Taskforce 141 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes.

Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse!
I hope not because i am honest
.. wot? Honest? What about all the lies?

Let’s see, the Rahit Maryada saga, was he a real person? You claimed he was and at 6:58am Fri 3 Aug 12 you said ‘my Sikh friend posted on here telling you personally him self.’ That was a lie southy, wasn’t it? And a quite deliberate lie at that.

And more recently at 1:40pm Fri 8 Feb 13 ‘They (38 Degrees) sent out mail about an hour after it was anounce the date of the election’. That was a lie southy, wasn’t it? And a quite deliberate lie at that.

And these are just two examples that spring to mind immediately. As you know I can find many, many more.

Liars are NOT honest.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]That is the funniest thing I have heard in along time - thank you for sharing your jokes. Be careful mind, I'm pretty sure if anyone does find an honest politician, that it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse![/p][/quote]I hope not because i am honest[/p][/quote].. wot? Honest? What about all the lies? Let’s see, the Rahit Maryada saga, was he a real person? You claimed he was and at 6:58am Fri 3 Aug 12 you said ‘my Sikh friend posted on here telling you personally him self.’ That was a lie southy, wasn’t it? And a quite deliberate lie at that. And more recently at 1:40pm Fri 8 Feb 13 ‘They (38 Degrees) sent out mail about an hour after it was anounce the date of the election’. That was a lie southy, wasn’t it? And a quite deliberate lie at that. And these are just two examples that spring to mind immediately. As you know I can find many, many more. Liars are NOT honest. freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Wed 13 Feb 13

sotonboy84 says...

Labour are scum.
Labour are scum. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Wed 13 Feb 13

George4th says...

southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies.
(Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!)

>
Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,
So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).
the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt.
once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.
The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!!
Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)[/p][/quote]The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,[/p][/quote]So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).[/p][/quote]the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt. once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.[/p][/quote]The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!! Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from? George4th
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Wed 13 Feb 13

George4th says...

Stephen J wrote:
The crisis facing local government at the moment is of its own making, at least in part. I worked for a local authority for over a decade and in that time the department I worked in nearly doubled in size. Its workload did not. Among the people I worked with there was no incentive for anyone to work over and above what was expected because to reward people for such effort would have been "unfair" to the downright lazy ones. There was what seemed like unlimited amounts of sick leave on offer, which many people fully exploited, and the notion of firing anyone on the grounds of incompetence was unheard of. At strategic level, so much time was wasted talking about work, rather than actually doing it - my how we loved meetings! Mission creep was rife and we largely did what we wanted, often according to the personal agendas of senior officers and elected members, rather than doing what needed to be done. We were forever looking at what we could be doing that we weren't doing, never at what we were doing that we should perhaps not be doing. Then the cuts came and redundancies followed. I was one of those affected.

So we need to look at what local government administration is for and what we want from it. To my mind it should be there to provide only those statutory services it alone can provide. Everything else should be done by someone else, if it's needed at all. The desperately sad situation facing staff in Southampton today and in other local authorities across the country has been brewing for years and has occurred because we have sleepwalked into allowing local authority administration to grow unchecked into a network of highly inefficient, unresponsive, inward-looking, eye-wateringly expensive monoliths. No doubt other people's experience of being on the inside of local authority administration is different. I just speak as I find and I have no political point to make.
At last, someone who speaks up and confirms what we all knew or suspected.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: The crisis facing local government at the moment is of its own making, at least in part. I worked for a local authority for over a decade and in that time the department I worked in nearly doubled in size. Its workload did not. Among the people I worked with there was no incentive for anyone to work over and above what was expected because to reward people for such effort would have been "unfair" to the downright lazy ones. There was what seemed like unlimited amounts of sick leave on offer, which many people fully exploited, and the notion of firing anyone on the grounds of incompetence was unheard of. At strategic level, so much time was wasted talking about work, rather than actually doing it - my how we loved meetings! Mission creep was rife and we largely did what we wanted, often according to the personal agendas of senior officers and elected members, rather than doing what needed to be done. We were forever looking at what we could be doing that we weren't doing, never at what we were doing that we should perhaps not be doing. Then the cuts came and redundancies followed. I was one of those affected. So we need to look at what local government administration is for and what we want from it. To my mind it should be there to provide only those statutory services it alone can provide. Everything else should be done by someone else, if it's needed at all. The desperately sad situation facing staff in Southampton today and in other local authorities across the country has been brewing for years and has occurred because we have sleepwalked into allowing local authority administration to grow unchecked into a network of highly inefficient, unresponsive, inward-looking, eye-wateringly expensive monoliths. No doubt other people's experience of being on the inside of local authority administration is different. I just speak as I find and I have no political point to make.[/p][/quote]At last, someone who speaks up and confirms what we all knew or suspected. George4th
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Wed 13 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Stephen J you make an excellent case, if you were in politics you would have my vote.
Stephen J you make an excellent case, if you were in politics you would have my vote. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Wed 13 Feb 13

loosehead says...

So restoring the pay cuts adds up to job losses exactly what the Tory council warned would happen.
£3million to restore a portion of the workers pay & all together £7-9million to restore all the pay how can this be justified?
do the workers who are losing their jobs feel they've been betrayed by Labour & the unions?
Take a pay cut & save jobs the Tories said or cut jobs & services Labour said we don't need to do any of that we can cover the cut in budget by improved working practices?
just remember Refuse is covered by the £8million grant so they save the wages & costs of that service so where's that money gone?
Be a Worker be a Good socialist be a good Union member? Unions who sat in on budget talks but advised their members to take a cut in redundancy pay & pensions?
BETRAYED by Labour & the same Unions who are now crying Foul play! Why they sat in on the budget meeting they knew what was coming so why so surprised?
So restoring the pay cuts adds up to job losses exactly what the Tory council warned would happen. £3million to restore a portion of the workers pay & all together £7-9million to restore all the pay how can this be justified? do the workers who are losing their jobs feel they've been betrayed by Labour & the unions? Take a pay cut & save jobs the Tories said or cut jobs & services Labour said we don't need to do any of that we can cover the cut in budget by improved working practices? just remember Refuse is covered by the £8million grant so they save the wages & costs of that service so where's that money gone? Be a Worker be a Good socialist be a good Union member? Unions who sat in on budget talks but advised their members to take a cut in redundancy pay & pensions? BETRAYED by Labour & the same Unions who are now crying Foul play! Why they sat in on the budget meeting they knew what was coming so why so surprised? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Wed 13 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding.

The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today.

But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'?

I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles.

Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies.

If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased.

Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office.

As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda.

Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them
Instead of posting absolute rubbish why not post the truth?
Take a pay cut & SAVE jobs & SERVICES was what Royston & the Tory council said it was your beloved Williams who said no need for pay cuts he also said Labour wouldn't cut services but the Tories would so who's the Liar?
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies. If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased. Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office. As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda. Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them[/p][/quote]Instead of posting absolute rubbish why not post the truth? Take a pay cut & SAVE jobs & SERVICES was what Royston & the Tory council said it was your beloved Williams who said no need for pay cuts he also said Labour wouldn't cut services but the Tories would so who's the Liar? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Wed 13 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Excellent points Loosehead.
Excellent points Loosehead. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Excellent points Loosehead.
What a pity that you cant deliver one ..
Still waiting for the facts .... or are you hoping that your mate will defend you again because you dont have the answers yourself
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Excellent points Loosehead.[/p][/quote]What a pity that you cant deliver one .. Still waiting for the facts .... or are you hoping that your mate will defend you again because you dont have the answers yourself Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

Stephen J wrote:
The crisis facing local government at the moment is of its own making, at least in part. I worked for a local authority for over a decade and in that time the department I worked in nearly doubled in size. Its workload did not. Among the people I worked with there was no incentive for anyone to work over and above what was expected because to reward people for such effort would have been "unfair" to the downright lazy ones. There was what seemed like unlimited amounts of sick leave on offer, which many people fully exploited, and the notion of firing anyone on the grounds of incompetence was unheard of. At strategic level, so much time was wasted talking about work, rather than actually doing it - my how we loved meetings! Mission creep was rife and we largely did what we wanted, often according to the personal agendas of senior officers and elected members, rather than doing what needed to be done. We were forever looking at what we could be doing that we weren't doing, never at what we were doing that we should perhaps not be doing. Then the cuts came and redundancies followed. I was one of those affected.

So we need to look at what local government administration is for and what we want from it. To my mind it should be there to provide only those statutory services it alone can provide. Everything else should be done by someone else, if it's needed at all. The desperately sad situation facing staff in Southampton today and in other local authorities across the country has been brewing for years and has occurred because we have sleepwalked into allowing local authority administration to grow unchecked into a network of highly inefficient, unresponsive, inward-looking, eye-wateringly expensive monoliths. No doubt other people's experience of being on the inside of local authority administration is different. I just speak as I find and I have no political point to make.
Local authorities became sponges to absorb and reduce the unemployed without being too concerned about providing value for money. That particular gravy train has now hit the buffers and Councils all over the country are having to take a reality check.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: The crisis facing local government at the moment is of its own making, at least in part. I worked for a local authority for over a decade and in that time the department I worked in nearly doubled in size. Its workload did not. Among the people I worked with there was no incentive for anyone to work over and above what was expected because to reward people for such effort would have been "unfair" to the downright lazy ones. There was what seemed like unlimited amounts of sick leave on offer, which many people fully exploited, and the notion of firing anyone on the grounds of incompetence was unheard of. At strategic level, so much time was wasted talking about work, rather than actually doing it - my how we loved meetings! Mission creep was rife and we largely did what we wanted, often according to the personal agendas of senior officers and elected members, rather than doing what needed to be done. We were forever looking at what we could be doing that we weren't doing, never at what we were doing that we should perhaps not be doing. Then the cuts came and redundancies followed. I was one of those affected. So we need to look at what local government administration is for and what we want from it. To my mind it should be there to provide only those statutory services it alone can provide. Everything else should be done by someone else, if it's needed at all. The desperately sad situation facing staff in Southampton today and in other local authorities across the country has been brewing for years and has occurred because we have sleepwalked into allowing local authority administration to grow unchecked into a network of highly inefficient, unresponsive, inward-looking, eye-wateringly expensive monoliths. No doubt other people's experience of being on the inside of local authority administration is different. I just speak as I find and I have no political point to make.[/p][/quote]Local authorities became sponges to absorb and reduce the unemployed without being too concerned about providing value for money. That particular gravy train has now hit the buffers and Councils all over the country are having to take a reality check. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies.
(Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!)

>
Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,
So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).
the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt.
once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.
The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!!
Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from?
No the blame go's to those that assett strip the country of its wealth, Yes it was being subsidise but by the money that they made it was a return of the big profits that they made for this country, but people was not told how much profit these state owned companys was making that was pass onto the government, Labour as never bankrupt us, they only took on the debt that the Torys as driven us into.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)[/p][/quote]The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,[/p][/quote]So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).[/p][/quote]the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt. once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.[/p][/quote]The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!! Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from?[/p][/quote]No the blame go's to those that assett strip the country of its wealth, Yes it was being subsidise but by the money that they made it was a return of the big profits that they made for this country, but people was not told how much profit these state owned companys was making that was pass onto the government, Labour as never bankrupt us, they only took on the debt that the Torys as driven us into. southy
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Wed 13 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding.

The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today.

But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'?

I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles.

Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies.

If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased.

Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office.

As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda.

Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them
Instead of posting absolute rubbish why not post the truth?
Take a pay cut & SAVE jobs & SERVICES was what Royston & the Tory council said it was your beloved Williams who said no need for pay cuts he also said Labour wouldn't cut services but the Tories would so who's the Liar?
The Torys if they staied in power would mean about 100 more job loses than the Labour, plus the Torys wage cut.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies. If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased. Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office. As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda. Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them[/p][/quote]Instead of posting absolute rubbish why not post the truth? Take a pay cut & SAVE jobs & SERVICES was what Royston & the Tory council said it was your beloved Williams who said no need for pay cuts he also said Labour wouldn't cut services but the Tories would so who's the Liar?[/p][/quote]The Torys if they staied in power would mean about 100 more job loses than the Labour, plus the Torys wage cut. southy
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
If you and your Tory buddies think that it is OK for Cameron & Co to blame all the country's ills on the last Labour government after they have been in power for two and a half Years, then is it not reasonable to assume that this Labour council's problems are as a result of the last Tory council's incompetence?

For a start. How much debt did they lumber the city with to build the new museum?
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]If you and your Tory buddies think that it is OK for Cameron & Co to blame all the country's ills on the last Labour government after they have been in power for two and a half Years, then is it not reasonable to assume that this Labour council's problems are as a result of the last Tory council's incompetence? For a start. How much debt did they lumber the city with to build the new museum? Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies.
(Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!)

>
Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,
So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).
the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt.
once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.
The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!!
Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from?
No the blame go's to those that assett strip the country of its wealth, Yes it was being subsidise but by the money that they made it was a return of the big profits that they made for this country, but people was not told how much profit these state owned companys was making that was pass onto the government, Labour as never bankrupt us, they only took on the debt that the Torys as driven us into.
There were indeed small pockets of nationalised industry that were profitable, in some case, highly so. And, as you say, the profits went straight to the Treasury. That was the problem. For example, some parts of British Rail became very profitable, but they weren't allowed to keep those profits. Instead, as with every other nationalised industry, BR had to go cap in hand to the Treasury to get permission to spend its own money for investment. It was a ludicrous situation that was completely unsustainable.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)[/p][/quote]The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,[/p][/quote]So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).[/p][/quote]the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt. once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.[/p][/quote]The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!! Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from?[/p][/quote]No the blame go's to those that assett strip the country of its wealth, Yes it was being subsidise but by the money that they made it was a return of the big profits that they made for this country, but people was not told how much profit these state owned companys was making that was pass onto the government, Labour as never bankrupt us, they only took on the debt that the Torys as driven us into.[/p][/quote]There were indeed small pockets of nationalised industry that were profitable, in some case, highly so. And, as you say, the profits went straight to the Treasury. That was the problem. For example, some parts of British Rail became very profitable, but they weren't allowed to keep those profits. Instead, as with every other nationalised industry, BR had to go cap in hand to the Treasury to get permission to spend its own money for investment. It was a ludicrous situation that was completely unsustainable. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Wed 13 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs.
Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.
If you and your Tory buddies think that it is OK for Cameron & Co to blame all the country's ills on the last Labour government after they have been in power for two and a half Years, then is it not reasonable to assume that this Labour council's problems are as a result of the last Tory council's incompetence?

For a start. How much debt did they lumber the city with to build the new museum?
Remember Millbrook Industrial Estate ?
Do you remember the kick up by your left wing buddies when this was sold to pay off the Sea City Museum so what debt?
Labour lied to get in to power forget the last Government the Tory council were going on the premises that there would be a £45million cut to the budget & put into place measures to cope with it.
Williams said no need for pay cuts to the workers whilst talking of axing 1-10 refuse jobs.
he lied to the electorate & said the Tories would severely cut services & Labour wouldn't.
now with a much smaller cut in the budget & with £8million top pay for refuse services so meaning even less of a cut he is cutting services & jobs whilst keeping £1.5million for his pet projects how in the hell is that the Tories fault & how the hell is this right?
Cllr Williams LIED TO US ALL
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Well,well, Labour promised no cuts to services or jobs. Vote Tory in 2014 for honest politicians.[/p][/quote]If you and your Tory buddies think that it is OK for Cameron & Co to blame all the country's ills on the last Labour government after they have been in power for two and a half Years, then is it not reasonable to assume that this Labour council's problems are as a result of the last Tory council's incompetence? For a start. How much debt did they lumber the city with to build the new museum?[/p][/quote]Remember Millbrook Industrial Estate ? Do you remember the kick up by your left wing buddies when this was sold to pay off the Sea City Museum so what debt? Labour lied to get in to power forget the last Government the Tory council were going on the premises that there would be a £45million cut to the budget & put into place measures to cope with it. Williams said no need for pay cuts to the workers whilst talking of axing 1-10 refuse jobs. he lied to the electorate & said the Tories would severely cut services & Labour wouldn't. now with a much smaller cut in the budget & with £8million top pay for refuse services so meaning even less of a cut he is cutting services & jobs whilst keeping £1.5million for his pet projects how in the hell is that the Tories fault & how the hell is this right? Cllr Williams LIED TO US ALL loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Wed 13 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, first I note you make no comment on my other suggestions.
Regarding merging management with the IOW, Southampton has 230,000 people the IOW 130,000, one management team could run both saving £3m per year, like the Tories were trying to do.
Tell your Labour friends to do it, then claim the glory.
Well after weeks of asking you have come up with a few numbers that debatable ..... Or shall we say inaccurate ....... and reduce management salaries to those of private industry ( Tories set these ) .... and a bit of out-sourcing ........ And that will save what exactly from the £16.5m cut from Pickles and his chums ??
.
You simply have no idea as to what is required.
.
The only saving grace is that a Tory council would have cut far more that what is being set-out today.
.
And i cant see anyone claiming that glory ........ At least you decided to do away with the name calling ... so far
So where do you get that from?
where did the Tories say they would cut more?
You call me a liar yet what you've just said is a total lie.
Royston said to the Unions a p-ay cut would ensure less job cuts & all front line services would be safe so exactly where in that statement did he say we'll slash services & cut 250 jobs straight away?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, first I note you make no comment on my other suggestions. Regarding merging management with the IOW, Southampton has 230,000 people the IOW 130,000, one management team could run both saving £3m per year, like the Tories were trying to do. Tell your Labour friends to do it, then claim the glory.[/p][/quote]Well after weeks of asking you have come up with a few numbers that debatable ..... Or shall we say inaccurate ....... and reduce management salaries to those of private industry ( Tories set these ) .... and a bit of out-sourcing ........ And that will save what exactly from the £16.5m cut from Pickles and his chums ?? . You simply have no idea as to what is required. . The only saving grace is that a Tory council would have cut far more that what is being set-out today. . And i cant see anyone claiming that glory ........ At least you decided to do away with the name calling ... so far[/p][/quote]So where do you get that from? where did the Tories say they would cut more? You call me a liar yet what you've just said is a total lie. Royston said to the Unions a p-ay cut would ensure less job cuts & all front line services would be safe so exactly where in that statement did he say we'll slash services & cut 250 jobs straight away? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Wed 13 Feb 13

loosehead says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sfby wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not.

Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.
That's one school of thought. I agree that paid officers should provide advice. It's when they use their powers to veto democratic debate that's more worrying.

There are also questions of consistency and impartiality of the 'professional' advice that councillors receive.

For instance the previous conservative administration borrowed heavily in support of large capital projects (purchase of 1 Guildhall Square, Sea City museum and the Arts Centre) where the anticipated private sector funding has failed to materialise. It would be interesting to know what the professional financial advice on these schemes from managers was and whether it was heeded.

I'd be equally interested in what legal advice was obtained when deciding to unlawfully and unilaterally cut the pay and conditions of Council staff. Had the unions persisted in (and won) their court claims, where would the Council have found the money for reinstatement (plus legal costs, natch)?
They didn't act illegally & it would have come out if the Unions after going to budget meetings with Labour knowing the threat to refuse jobs & the jobs that would be lost & services that would be slashed they hadn't conned the members into dropping a dead cert thing to take lower redundancy packages & lower pensions as those unions knew the lie would come out & their members would know they had been used in a political strike
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sfby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting that because senior managers are unelected, they should have no say say in whether certain courses of action are legal or not. Surely these are precisely the people who SHOULD be making the decision - i.e. managers who are paid to know, and advise on, the law.[/p][/quote]That's one school of thought. I agree that paid officers should provide advice. It's when they use their powers to veto democratic debate that's more worrying. There are also questions of consistency and impartiality of the 'professional' advice that councillors receive. For instance the previous conservative administration borrowed heavily in support of large capital projects (purchase of 1 Guildhall Square, Sea City museum and the Arts Centre) where the anticipated private sector funding has failed to materialise. It would be interesting to know what the professional financial advice on these schemes from managers was and whether it was heeded. I'd be equally interested in what legal advice was obtained when deciding to unlawfully and unilaterally cut the pay and conditions of Council staff. Had the unions persisted in (and won) their court claims, where would the Council have found the money for reinstatement (plus legal costs, natch)?[/p][/quote]They didn't act illegally & it would have come out if the Unions after going to budget meetings with Labour knowing the threat to refuse jobs & the jobs that would be lost & services that would be slashed they hadn't conned the members into dropping a dead cert thing to take lower redundancy packages & lower pensions as those unions knew the lie would come out & their members would know they had been used in a political strike loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Wed 13 Feb 13

loosehead says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Stop paying £500,000 each year for unions.
Merge management with the IOW saving £3m each year.
Reduce the number of cabinet members by 2 ( saving £22,000 each year, not much but their is one job saved.
Reduce management salaries to that of private industry.
Out source services where money can be saved.
Put the following first children, tax payers and the elderly.
Lone Ranger & the left who've betrayed the people of the city can only justify what the left are doing by attacking the right.
We know that CLLR WILLIAMS LIED to all of us we know the UNIONS LIED to their membership how soon will it be the voters & Union members realise this?
I said wait until the budget & let's see what those workers would rather have?
restoration of pay or their jobs so why don't the Unions & Labour ask those workers who are now losing their jobs?
NO it's easier blaming the Gov. or the last Tory Council
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Stop paying £500,000 each year for unions. Merge management with the IOW saving £3m each year. Reduce the number of cabinet members by 2 ( saving £22,000 each year, not much but their is one job saved. Reduce management salaries to that of private industry. Out source services where money can be saved. Put the following first children, tax payers and the elderly.[/p][/quote]Lone Ranger & the left who've betrayed the people of the city can only justify what the left are doing by attacking the right. We know that CLLR WILLIAMS LIED to all of us we know the UNIONS LIED to their membership how soon will it be the voters & Union members realise this? I said wait until the budget & let's see what those workers would rather have? restoration of pay or their jobs so why don't the Unions & Labour ask those workers who are now losing their jobs? NO it's easier blaming the Gov. or the last Tory Council loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Wed 13 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding.

The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today.

But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'?

I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles.

Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies.

If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased.

Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office.

As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda.

Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them
Instead of posting absolute rubbish why not post the truth?
Take a pay cut & SAVE jobs & SERVICES was what Royston & the Tory council said it was your beloved Williams who said no need for pay cuts he also said Labour wouldn't cut services but the Tories would so who's the Liar?
The Torys if they staied in power would mean about 100 more job loses than the Labour, plus the Torys wage cut.
I notice you didn't say they'd cut services?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies. If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased. Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office. As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda. Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them[/p][/quote]Instead of posting absolute rubbish why not post the truth? Take a pay cut & SAVE jobs & SERVICES was what Royston & the Tory council said it was your beloved Williams who said no need for pay cuts he also said Labour wouldn't cut services but the Tories would so who's the Liar?[/p][/quote]The Torys if they staied in power would mean about 100 more job loses than the Labour, plus the Torys wage cut.[/p][/quote]I notice you didn't say they'd cut services? loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Wed 13 Feb 13

George4th says...

loosehead wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Stop paying £500,000 each year for unions.
Merge management with the IOW saving £3m each year.
Reduce the number of cabinet members by 2 ( saving £22,000 each year, not much but their is one job saved.
Reduce management salaries to that of private industry.
Out source services where money can be saved.
Put the following first children, tax payers and the elderly.
Lone Ranger & the left who've betrayed the people of the city can only justify what the left are doing by attacking the right.
We know that CLLR WILLIAMS LIED to all of us we know the UNIONS LIED to their membership how soon will it be the voters & Union members realise this?
I said wait until the budget & let's see what those workers would rather have?
restoration of pay or their jobs so why don't the Unions & Labour ask those workers who are now losing their jobs?
NO it's easier blaming the Gov. or the last Tory Council
Right on the nail Loosehead.
>
Southampton is steeped in Labour, a hangover from the bad old Union days, and as a consequence the citizens of Southampton have paid the price for incompetence. Labour councils have never been any good for the growth of Southampton, only the demise of Southampton.
>
The fact that Southampton is the only Labour council in the South tells its own story!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Stop paying £500,000 each year for unions. Merge management with the IOW saving £3m each year. Reduce the number of cabinet members by 2 ( saving £22,000 each year, not much but their is one job saved. Reduce management salaries to that of private industry. Out source services where money can be saved. Put the following first children, tax payers and the elderly.[/p][/quote]Lone Ranger & the left who've betrayed the people of the city can only justify what the left are doing by attacking the right. We know that CLLR WILLIAMS LIED to all of us we know the UNIONS LIED to their membership how soon will it be the voters & Union members realise this? I said wait until the budget & let's see what those workers would rather have? restoration of pay or their jobs so why don't the Unions & Labour ask those workers who are now losing their jobs? NO it's easier blaming the Gov. or the last Tory Council[/p][/quote]Right on the nail Loosehead. > Southampton is steeped in Labour, a hangover from the bad old Union days, and as a consequence the citizens of Southampton have paid the price for incompetence. Labour councils have never been any good for the growth of Southampton, only the demise of Southampton. > The fact that Southampton is the only Labour council in the South tells its own story! George4th
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Thu 14 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding.

The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today.

But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'?

I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles.

Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.
Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies.

If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased.

Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office.

As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda.

Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them
Instead of posting absolute rubbish why not post the truth?
Take a pay cut & SAVE jobs & SERVICES was what Royston & the Tory council said it was your beloved Williams who said no need for pay cuts he also said Labour wouldn't cut services but the Tories would so who's the Liar?
The Torys if they staied in power would mean about 100 more job loses than the Labour, plus the Torys wage cut.
I notice you didn't say they'd cut services?
yes we know that they had all ready started to cut service.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I plan to attend the demonstration before the Council meeting today and look forward to hearing the views of all political groupings about how they plan to address the Government's massive cut in the Council's funding. The budget shortfall in Southampton is £20 million although it now appears that there is a partial respite of £5 million. We have Labour's plans for dealing with the remaining £15 million shortfall and the Liberal Democrats have also produced an alternative budget will be debated later today. But where are the plans of the Conservatives and their unlikely bed fellows, the Trotskyite 'Labour Councillors against the Cuts'? I hear that opinions within the once ruling Conservative group are deeply divided with one faction arguing for a continuation of the failed 'slash and burn' policies while others - worried about the devastation on public services like libraries, youth services etc. - would support an increase in Council tax above the limit being imposed by the minister, Eric Pickles. Labour Councillors against the Cuts seem to support the line being peddled by TUSC which is for 'prudential borrowing' on an industrial scale but the (unelected) Council's senior managers have declared this to be unlawful and have therefore decided that this option cannot be debated.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the in fighting amongst the Tory councillors, which saw Royston trying to bully his colleagues into the way he wanted it, of course the Tories would not come up an alternative budget proposal, simply because they do not and didn't have one other than slash and burn policies. If the Tories would have been in power still, services would have been decimated even further, whilst borrowing would have increased. Royston was on crusade to be an MP, no way on earth would he lead a council increasing council tax beyond what was imposed by Eric Fatboy Pickles, he was forward planning way beyond the tenure of this council term of office. As for Pete aka Southy and the TUSC illegal borrowing is not an option, all Don and Keith are interested in is Oaklands pool remaining, although I admire their stance, they must realise its not the most important thing on the agenda. Cuts will have to happen, we may not like them, but once Pickles set the budget, their is little or no options but to make cuts, even the Tories would have made them[/p][/quote]Instead of posting absolute rubbish why not post the truth? Take a pay cut & SAVE jobs & SERVICES was what Royston & the Tory council said it was your beloved Williams who said no need for pay cuts he also said Labour wouldn't cut services but the Tories would so who's the Liar?[/p][/quote]The Torys if they staied in power would mean about 100 more job loses than the Labour, plus the Torys wage cut.[/p][/quote]I notice you didn't say they'd cut services?[/p][/quote]yes we know that they had all ready started to cut service. southy
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Thu 14 Feb 13

southy says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies.
(Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!)

>
Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,
So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).
the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt.
once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.
The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!!
Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from?
No the blame go's to those that assett strip the country of its wealth, Yes it was being subsidise but by the money that they made it was a return of the big profits that they made for this country, but people was not told how much profit these state owned companys was making that was pass onto the government, Labour as never bankrupt us, they only took on the debt that the Torys as driven us into.
There were indeed small pockets of nationalised industry that were profitable, in some case, highly so. And, as you say, the profits went straight to the Treasury. That was the problem. For example, some parts of British Rail became very profitable, but they weren't allowed to keep those profits. Instead, as with every other nationalised industry, BR had to go cap in hand to the Treasury to get permission to spend its own money for investment. It was a ludicrous situation that was completely unsustainable.
Not some all was very profitable, it was the profits that they made was paying off the WW1 loan, the Debt that the Capitalist ran up in the 1920's/30's and paying off the WWII loan, we was coming out of debt with the state industarys, the state own oil would of started to pay off big time if it was let alone.
And yes it was the problem the money going off to the Treasury, but we came out of WWII totally broke and it was those state industarys that go us back on our feet by paying off the debt, this I can understand why it was done, but like your pointing at they was not allowed to get more money back than the government allowed them to, Uk biggest export was Cars, Coal and Steel (oil would of been inclued if Thatcher had not sold it off) all state owned industary all working for the country
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)[/p][/quote]The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,[/p][/quote]So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).[/p][/quote]the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt. once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.[/p][/quote]The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!! Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from?[/p][/quote]No the blame go's to those that assett strip the country of its wealth, Yes it was being subsidise but by the money that they made it was a return of the big profits that they made for this country, but people was not told how much profit these state owned companys was making that was pass onto the government, Labour as never bankrupt us, they only took on the debt that the Torys as driven us into.[/p][/quote]There were indeed small pockets of nationalised industry that were profitable, in some case, highly so. And, as you say, the profits went straight to the Treasury. That was the problem. For example, some parts of British Rail became very profitable, but they weren't allowed to keep those profits. Instead, as with every other nationalised industry, BR had to go cap in hand to the Treasury to get permission to spend its own money for investment. It was a ludicrous situation that was completely unsustainable.[/p][/quote]Not some all was very profitable, it was the profits that they made was paying off the WW1 loan, the Debt that the Capitalist ran up in the 1920's/30's and paying off the WWII loan, we was coming out of debt with the state industarys, the state own oil would of started to pay off big time if it was let alone. And yes it was the problem the money going off to the Treasury, but we came out of WWII totally broke and it was those state industarys that go us back on our feet by paying off the debt, this I can understand why it was done, but like your pointing at they was not allowed to get more money back than the government allowed them to, Uk biggest export was Cars, Coal and Steel (oil would of been inclued if Thatcher had not sold it off) all state owned industary all working for the country southy
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Thu 14 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
southy wrote:
George4th wrote:
All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies.
(Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!)

>
Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)
The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,
So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).
the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt.
once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.
The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!!
Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from?
No the blame go's to those that assett strip the country of its wealth, Yes it was being subsidise but by the money that they made it was a return of the big profits that they made for this country, but people was not told how much profit these state owned companys was making that was pass onto the government, Labour as never bankrupt us, they only took on the debt that the Torys as driven us into.
There were indeed small pockets of nationalised industry that were profitable, in some case, highly so. And, as you say, the profits went straight to the Treasury. That was the problem. For example, some parts of British Rail became very profitable, but they weren't allowed to keep those profits. Instead, as with every other nationalised industry, BR had to go cap in hand to the Treasury to get permission to spend its own money for investment. It was a ludicrous situation that was completely unsustainable.
Not some all was very profitable, it was the profits that they made was paying off the WW1 loan, the Debt that the Capitalist ran up in the 1920's/30's and paying off the WWII loan, we was coming out of debt with the state industarys, the state own oil would of started to pay off big time if it was let alone.
And yes it was the problem the money going off to the Treasury, but we came out of WWII totally broke and it was those state industarys that go us back on our feet by paying off the debt, this I can understand why it was done, but like your pointing at they was not allowed to get more money back than the government allowed them to, Uk biggest export was Cars, Coal and Steel (oil would of been inclued if Thatcher had not sold it off) all state owned industary all working for the country
You still can't get it through that peanut brain of yours we were in debt to the IMF we were seeing all Nationalised Industries striking at the drop of a hat.
our country was where Greece are now with out a banking crash bought on by the unions.
We had to change it we had to curtail union powers & YES we had to sell ailing Nationalised Industries.
We used the monies to balance the books something the previous Labour Government hadn't managed to do & haven't since.
Take a look at Eastern Germany or Russia their Nationalised Industries were churning out c++p products that no one wanted & so was Leylands.
look how those industries have been modernised & the great products they're now churning out?
it isn't nationalisation that's needed it's that idea that destroyed our manufacturing industries.
it's also the TUSC policies that had countless companies fleeing Liverpool to go over seas even if the workforce was cheaper here so sorry get back to the dinosaur days.( my family are from Liverpool)
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: All blame for out predicament lies with the last Labour government for its insatiable spending policies. (Made 10 times worse by allowing 2 Million immigrants into the country!!!!!) > Locally, our current status is the fault both the last Labour government, and of previous Labour councils over a 25 year period - they failed to invest in Southampton's future and, like the last Labour government, they just go on spending sprees. (Wasn't it our illustrious Labour Council who introduced salaries for themselves?!)[/p][/quote]The blame can be trace back to Thatcher days as PM. She was the one that sold of state ownership and doing so, sold of the big profits that they was making for the country to keep the debt down, as soon as all that money was gone which was not long after the sell off then the debt was bound to go up very fast as there was only tax left to pay things off,[/p][/quote]So, given that the Labour government inherited no debt and then accumulated £600 Billion Debt BEFORE the global financial crisis was all Thatchers fault? (And that was apart from the run on from Labour's outrageous spending commitments!).[/p][/quote]the blame can firmly be place at her feet George4th, if she had not asset strip the country of it wealth, and hand that wealth to the few, who then go on a tax avoidence, the country do not have that imcome coming in no more, selling off our oil was the biggest error, if we still had that in public ownership this country would of been in the trillions in credit. and not in debt. once the country as been assett strip there was nothing to hold back the debt that will follow, would of thought the capitalist would of learned this from the 1920's.[/p][/quote]The country was bankrupt from the previous Labour government! (That's twice they've bankrupted us!). The BIG State Industries were subsidised and losing money hand over fist! Major manufacturing was dead, only the Unions wouldn't have it!!! Where did you think Thatcher was going to get the money from?[/p][/quote]No the blame go's to those that assett strip the country of its wealth, Yes it was being subsidise but by the money that they made it was a return of the big profits that they made for this country, but people was not told how much profit these state owned companys was making that was pass onto the government, Labour as never bankrupt us, they only took on the debt that the Torys as driven us into.[/p][/quote]There were indeed small pockets of nationalised industry that were profitable, in some case, highly so. And, as you say, the profits went straight to the Treasury. That was the problem. For example, some parts of British Rail became very profitable, but they weren't allowed to keep those profits. Instead, as with every other nationalised industry, BR had to go cap in hand to the Treasury to get permission to spend its own money for investment. It was a ludicrous situation that was completely unsustainable.[/p][/quote]Not some all was very profitable, it was the profits that they made was paying off the WW1 loan, the Debt that the Capitalist ran up in the 1920's/30's and paying off the WWII loan, we was coming out of debt with the state industarys, the state own oil would of started to pay off big time if it was let alone. And yes it was the problem the money going off to the Treasury, but we came out of WWII totally broke and it was those state industarys that go us back on our feet by paying off the debt, this I can understand why it was done, but like your pointing at they was not allowed to get more money back than the government allowed them to, Uk biggest export was Cars, Coal and Steel (oil would of been inclued if Thatcher had not sold it off) all state owned industary all working for the country[/p][/quote]You still can't get it through that peanut brain of yours we were in debt to the IMF we were seeing all Nationalised Industries striking at the drop of a hat. our country was where Greece are now with out a banking crash bought on by the unions. We had to change it we had to curtail union powers & YES we had to sell ailing Nationalised Industries. We used the monies to balance the books something the previous Labour Government hadn't managed to do & haven't since. Take a look at Eastern Germany or Russia their Nationalised Industries were churning out c++p products that no one wanted & so was Leylands. look how those industries have been modernised & the great products they're now churning out? it isn't nationalisation that's needed it's that idea that destroyed our manufacturing industries. it's also the TUSC policies that had countless companies fleeing Liverpool to go over seas even if the workforce was cheaper here so sorry get back to the dinosaur days.( my family are from Liverpool) loosehead
  • Score: 0

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