Southampton City Council to vote on £14.4m budget cuts

Daily Echo: Southampton Civic Centre Southampton Civic Centre

IT’S decision day for £14.4 million of cuts at Southampton City Council.

Services across the city are set to take another battering as the authority prepares to set its budget for 2014/15 today.

  • Live coverage of the cabinet meeting from 2pm

Labour council chiefs have put forward their proposals, which will see almost 100 jobs go and council tax rise by 1.9 per cent.

And there are already warnings that this year’s budget is just “the calm before the storm”, with £30m of cuts needing to be found for next year’s budget alone and council tax set to rise by 1.9 per cent again in each of the next two years.

The council has blamed the Government for a dramatic reduction in funding in recent years, which has forced them into making unpleasant decisions.

But opposition councillors have branded it a “disaster”

for the city, and have accused them of doing the Government’s “dirty work”.

The city has already endured several rounds of cuts, including £16m worth last year.

And Labour’s proposals for next year will be the subject of fierce debate at the Civic Centre at 2pm today.

Speaking ahead of the meeting, council finance chief and deputy leader Stephen Barnes-Andrews said: “We are facing a shortfall between our income and expenditure in 2014/15 due to a decrease in the funding we receive from central Government, increasing demand for our services and rising costs.

“This means that spending reductions have to be made, however we have demonstrated our commitment to engaging residents and stakeholders more extensively than before on which services they think we should prioritise.”

But opposition groups have attacked the proposals.

Conservative leader Royston Smith, pictured below, said: “This Labour budget is a disaster for Southampton’s residents again.

“While nationally Labour campaign on their perceived cost of living crisis, Labour in Southampton are actively creating one.

Daily Echo:

“The council should be prioritising services. They should not rule out bringing in the private sector where appropriate and they should be merging services at the very highest level with other authorities.”

And Putting People First leader Keith Morrell said: “Last year we proposed a budget amendment which would have protected all jobs and services and laid the basis for a city-wide campaign to restore the Government funding stolen from the city since 2010.

“We stand by that proposal and appeal to Labour councillors to reject the Government cuts, and refuse to vote for them.”

• To follow live updates from the meeting, log on to this site from 2pm.

Daily Echo: City council leader Cllr Simon LettsCouncil leader Simon Letts

This year’s budget at a glance

IF the budget is passed today, council tax will rise by 1.9 per cent from April while almost 100 jobs will be lost.

Forty-three of those posts will be lost as part of the project to streamline the council’s children’s, public health, adult and housing departments into the new People’s Directorate.

And the council tax increase means Band D households will see their annual bills rise from £1,475 to £1,500.

The City Patrol environmental ranger service will be axed, while a number of services will be reduced or changed.

Trading Standards and the out of hours noise response are to be reduced, £110,000 of annual funding removed for the free City Link bus service and the Tudor House museum to have its hours reduced.

Labour council bosses say they have managed to stave off the worst of the cuts by finding efficiencies within the budget of every department.

More than 3,600 city residents took part in consultation for this year’s budget, and civic chiefs say they have responded to that in a number of ways.

Plans to make two staff in the museums and galleries education team redundant have been
overturned, while a pledge to freeze parking charges in the city is now set in stone.

The Conservative's Alternative Budget

Daily Echo: Tory opposition leader Royston Smith

The council’s Conservatives say they did not want to use up officers’ time in preparing a
budget.

Leader Royston Smith said: “There is a great deal of officer time incurred in preparing alternative budgets.

“We can highlight where we would do things differently and how would pay for them without
preparing a full budget.”

The Liberal Democrat alternative budget

Daily Echo: Cllr Adrian Vinson

THE Liberal Democrats have proposed an alternative budget, in which they say they would make 20 less redundancies than Labour, rebuild the city’s youth services damaged by last year’s cuts, and save the City Patrol.

They would also reverse cuts to street cleaning and waste collections, bus services and the out of hours noise service.

To fund the changes, they would reduce councillors’ allowances by ten per cent and outlaw council revenue contributions to big capital projects, sell assets and borrow “at favourable rates”.

The proposals, which would stretch across the next three financial years, will be considered by the full council today.

Group leader Adrian Vinson said: “Though, given the harsh economic climate, there are no
soft options and we have had to accept with a heavy heart measures involving real pain,
the Lib Dem three-year budget is guided by clear principles of minimising cuts to key services, supporting the most vulnerable people, and providing our protection for neighbourhoods and
communities.”

The Putting People First Alternative Budget

Daily Echo: Keith Morrell

After his group’s proposals were declared illegal at last year’s budget meeting, Putting People First leader Keith Morrell said they have decided against putting a formal alternative forward this year, saying it would just be voted down by Labour.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:54am Wed 12 Feb 14

WILLIAM HAGUES TWIN BROTHER. says...

private corporation , total joke.
private corporation , total joke. WILLIAM HAGUES TWIN BROTHER.
  • Score: -3

10:08am Wed 12 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

Oh please just get rid of Letts, won't quite fill the shortfall but we wouldn't have that idiot trying to run the city which would be worth so much more.

Same old excuses, blaming the cuts on the government when Letts himself admitted the council have been aware of the impending cuts for some time so there is no excuse as they had plenty of time to adapt.

Makes you laugh though that they try and promote parking charges freezing as a positive when it was this council that have hyped them up so much they couldn't go much higher! They're using parking as a source of revenue which is very wrong and goes against government advise that town halls should NOT be using parking charges as a source of income.

The same applies to the Itchen Bridge. Since the automatic toll booths have been installed and programmed not to give change (eve though they can) as the council feel that people dropping change would cause congestion – how much extra profit is being made in the extra change alone?

How many weeks ago was it too that to try and make excuses for the appalling handling of traffic and roadworks that Rayment/Letts said one way of tackling their mess was to encourage cruise passengers to travel to the city before. Not a great first impression for visitors to the city if they arrive at Tudor House and find it's only open part time!
Oh please just get rid of Letts, won't quite fill the shortfall but we wouldn't have that idiot trying to run the city which would be worth so much more. Same old excuses, blaming the cuts on the government when Letts himself admitted the council have been aware of the impending cuts for some time so there is no excuse as they had plenty of time to adapt. Makes you laugh though that they try and promote parking charges freezing as a positive when it was this council that have hyped them up so much they couldn't go much higher! They're using parking as a source of revenue which is very wrong and goes against government advise that town halls should NOT be using parking charges as a source of income. The same applies to the Itchen Bridge. Since the automatic toll booths have been installed and programmed not to give change (eve though they can) as the council feel that people dropping change would cause congestion – how much extra profit is being made in the extra change alone? How many weeks ago was it too that to try and make excuses for the appalling handling of traffic and roadworks that Rayment/Letts said one way of tackling their mess was to encourage cruise passengers to travel to the city before. Not a great first impression for visitors to the city if they arrive at Tudor House and find it's only open part time! sotonboy84
  • Score: 4

10:11am Wed 12 Feb 14

good-gosh says...

So, how much will they have left to spend? It must me down to around £1/2 million a day?
So, how much will they have left to spend? It must me down to around £1/2 million a day? good-gosh
  • Score: 0

10:45am Wed 12 Feb 14

commonsense888 says...

You can bet your bottom dollar the people at the top WON'T be feeling the pain. I dont know the figures in Southampton, but nobody in a council job should be paid more than the Prime Minister. Something needs to be done!
You can bet your bottom dollar the people at the top WON'T be feeling the pain. I dont know the figures in Southampton, but nobody in a council job should be paid more than the Prime Minister. Something needs to be done! commonsense888
  • Score: 6

10:47am Wed 12 Feb 14

bigfella777 says...

Where is the reality? Nobody wants a council tax rise but to say that a band d will go up £25 a year is just pathetic, in real terms council tax has been cut by 10% over the last 3 years, no wonder there is shortfall.
They can put it up over 2% if they have a referendum and I am quite happy for a 5% rise.
It's funny nobody is mentioning that council housing rents are going up 4.5% when it's usually only 1%, clobber the poorest as usual.
Where is the reality? Nobody wants a council tax rise but to say that a band d will go up £25 a year is just pathetic, in real terms council tax has been cut by 10% over the last 3 years, no wonder there is shortfall. They can put it up over 2% if they have a referendum and I am quite happy for a 5% rise. It's funny nobody is mentioning that council housing rents are going up 4.5% when it's usually only 1%, clobber the poorest as usual. bigfella777
  • Score: 1

10:51am Wed 12 Feb 14

Maine Lobster says...

The opposition and independants have not put forward an alternative budget. That is because they would also be in the same situation after their Government have cut Council funding across the board. Not having the time or not wanting to waste officer time is rubbish. They can now conveniently absolve themselves of having to face the reality of the pressure ALL Councils are having to deal with. The administration, regardless of who runs it would have a horrendous problem to try to balance the books. They have to put forward a budget or lose the ability to run the finances locally.
The opposition and independants have not put forward an alternative budget. That is because they would also be in the same situation after their Government have cut Council funding across the board. Not having the time or not wanting to waste officer time is rubbish. They can now conveniently absolve themselves of having to face the reality of the pressure ALL Councils are having to deal with. The administration, regardless of who runs it would have a horrendous problem to try to balance the books. They have to put forward a budget or lose the ability to run the finances locally. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 8

12:26pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Miguel Raton says...

As a start impose a salary cap of £100k pa and halve all salaries above £30k pa.
As a start impose a salary cap of £100k pa and halve all salaries above £30k pa. Miguel Raton
  • Score: -3

12:33pm Wed 12 Feb 14

HillsidePaul says...

So Royston, the man who had rubbish filling the streets for weeks can't even be bothered to put forward a budget. Probably because he would have to admit that it's his Government that are the cause of these cuts.

The Libdems will of course pretend that the Government is nothing to do with them. But fair play at least they have proposed an alternative.

And as for Keith Morell the leader of the let others make the tough decisions and then pretend I have a "Magic" alternative party. If your budget last year was illegal then how about doing one that isn't. But no, going off in a sulk is much easier.

All Cllrs are elected to represent the people, how can they do that when, at the most important meeting of the year they shout and scream about what is proposed, but offer the voters no alternative options.
So Royston, the man who had rubbish filling the streets for weeks can't even be bothered to put forward a budget. Probably because he would have to admit that it's his Government that are the cause of these cuts. The Libdems will of course pretend that the Government is nothing to do with them. But fair play at least they have proposed an alternative. And as for Keith Morell the leader of the let others make the tough decisions and then pretend I have a "Magic" alternative party. If your budget last year was illegal then how about doing one that isn't. But no, going off in a sulk is much easier. All Cllrs are elected to represent the people, how can they do that when, at the most important meeting of the year they shout and scream about what is proposed, but offer the voters no alternative options. HillsidePaul
  • Score: 1

12:43pm Wed 12 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

HillsidePaul wrote:
So Royston, the man who had rubbish filling the streets for weeks can't even be bothered to put forward a budget. Probably because he would have to admit that it's his Government that are the cause of these cuts.

The Libdems will of course pretend that the Government is nothing to do with them. But fair play at least they have proposed an alternative.

And as for Keith Morell the leader of the let others make the tough decisions and then pretend I have a "Magic" alternative party. If your budget last year was illegal then how about doing one that isn't. But no, going off in a sulk is much easier.

All Cllrs are elected to represent the people, how can they do that when, at the most important meeting of the year they shout and scream about what is proposed, but offer the voters no alternative options.
I think you're forgetting the cause of the cuts from central government - the damage Labour caused with their spendthrift ways and their open door policy to immigration with no infrastructure and funds to support the millions more people than anticipated that arrived.
[quote][p][bold]HillsidePaul[/bold] wrote: So Royston, the man who had rubbish filling the streets for weeks can't even be bothered to put forward a budget. Probably because he would have to admit that it's his Government that are the cause of these cuts. The Libdems will of course pretend that the Government is nothing to do with them. But fair play at least they have proposed an alternative. And as for Keith Morell the leader of the let others make the tough decisions and then pretend I have a "Magic" alternative party. If your budget last year was illegal then how about doing one that isn't. But no, going off in a sulk is much easier. All Cllrs are elected to represent the people, how can they do that when, at the most important meeting of the year they shout and scream about what is proposed, but offer the voters no alternative options.[/p][/quote]I think you're forgetting the cause of the cuts from central government - the damage Labour caused with their spendthrift ways and their open door policy to immigration with no infrastructure and funds to support the millions more people than anticipated that arrived. sotonboy84
  • Score: 5

12:54pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Oh please just get rid of Letts, won't quite fill the shortfall but we wouldn't have that idiot trying to run the city which would be worth so much more.

Same old excuses, blaming the cuts on the government when Letts himself admitted the council have been aware of the impending cuts for some time so there is no excuse as they had plenty of time to adapt.

Makes you laugh though that they try and promote parking charges freezing as a positive when it was this council that have hyped them up so much they couldn't go much higher! They're using parking as a source of revenue which is very wrong and goes against government advise that town halls should NOT be using parking charges as a source of income.

The same applies to the Itchen Bridge. Since the automatic toll booths have been installed and programmed not to give change (eve though they can) as the council feel that people dropping change would cause congestion – how much extra profit is being made in the extra change alone?

How many weeks ago was it too that to try and make excuses for the appalling handling of traffic and roadworks that Rayment/Letts said one way of tackling their mess was to encourage cruise passengers to travel to the city before. Not a great first impression for visitors to the city if they arrive at Tudor House and find it's only open part time!
No point Keith and Don putting anything forward, Labour Council would have humiliated them in public.
Why should the Tories put anything forward? Whats the point? Labour have no regard for the welfare or the people of this City. The Southampton Labour Council will not do anything other than what they see fit.
This is Labours **** up 100%, and I for one am interested to see if they remember to dot every i and cross every t although it appears a few things have been overlooked...
The proof is in the little plum pudding for all to see!
They have branched out and think they will continue to milk us motorists paying to park for many years! Another pot of dosh to waste....
No wonder the parking charges were frozen!

Then there is the ISSUE of Agency Workers that have had to be drafted in as too many of the 'wrong staff' have been sacked/made redundant by people who know nothing, merely rising up through union ranks, a lot of hollering and joining a protest march or 2 and hey presto! Bob's your uncle!
They think they're fully fledged councillors!

The decision to restore pay has and still is at the expense of SCC employees, who are non union voting members and who had already signed up to the pay cut in 2011,
So why is this allowed to be swept under the carpet?
There is overwhelming evidence to prove The strikes in 2011 were caused by the senior Labour officers/ Union members within the ranks whilst under a Conservative administration.
The only reason UCATT came in, in Nov 11 was because most staff had signed to cuts only handful left which hadn't , and they needed to drag it out further in their pledge to oust the Tory admin in election.
Senior HR were with-holding correspondence from Alastair Neill to members of staff with regard to pay cuts.
SCC Senior HR ,Regulatory and Economics are all guilty as sin,
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Oh please just get rid of Letts, won't quite fill the shortfall but we wouldn't have that idiot trying to run the city which would be worth so much more. Same old excuses, blaming the cuts on the government when Letts himself admitted the council have been aware of the impending cuts for some time so there is no excuse as they had plenty of time to adapt. Makes you laugh though that they try and promote parking charges freezing as a positive when it was this council that have hyped them up so much they couldn't go much higher! They're using parking as a source of revenue which is very wrong and goes against government advise that town halls should NOT be using parking charges as a source of income. The same applies to the Itchen Bridge. Since the automatic toll booths have been installed and programmed not to give change (eve though they can) as the council feel that people dropping change would cause congestion – how much extra profit is being made in the extra change alone? How many weeks ago was it too that to try and make excuses for the appalling handling of traffic and roadworks that Rayment/Letts said one way of tackling their mess was to encourage cruise passengers to travel to the city before. Not a great first impression for visitors to the city if they arrive at Tudor House and find it's only open part time![/p][/quote]No point Keith and Don putting anything forward, Labour Council would have humiliated them in public. Why should the Tories put anything forward? Whats the point? Labour have no regard for the welfare or the people of this City. The Southampton Labour Council will not do anything other than what they see fit. This is Labours **** up 100%, and I for one am interested to see if they remember to dot every i and cross every t although it appears a few things have been overlooked... The proof is in the little plum pudding for all to see! They have branched out and think they will continue to milk us motorists paying to park for many years! Another pot of dosh to waste.... No wonder the parking charges were frozen! Then there is the ISSUE of Agency Workers that have had to be drafted in as too many of the 'wrong staff' have been sacked/made redundant by people who know nothing, merely rising up through union ranks, a lot of hollering and joining a protest march or 2 and hey presto! Bob's your uncle! They think they're fully fledged councillors! The decision to restore pay has and still is at the expense of SCC employees, who are non union voting members and who had already signed up to the pay cut in 2011, So why is this allowed to be swept under the carpet? There is overwhelming evidence to prove The strikes in 2011 were caused by the senior Labour officers/ Union members within the ranks whilst under a Conservative administration. The only reason UCATT came in, in Nov 11 was because most staff had signed to cuts only handful left which hadn't , and they needed to drag it out further in their pledge to oust the Tory admin in election. Senior HR were with-holding correspondence from Alastair Neill to members of staff with regard to pay cuts. SCC Senior HR ,Regulatory and Economics are all guilty as sin, Ronnie G
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Rather than confronting the central government, which is the main culprit for making the financial life of all local authorities difficult, the gutless unprincpiled self serving NuLabourites are making us the people pay more for less services.

It hurts my socialist pride to admit that there is lot of truth in Tory Cllr. Royston's sound bite, that while national opportunist leadership of NuLabour is paying lip service to ever increasing cost of living crisis in Southampton the NuLabour councillors led by Simon Letts and Stephen Barns-Andrews are in fact contributing to to the same problem of local tax payers.

But unfortunately Cllr. Smith led Conservatives have not proposed any other alternative budget. Why not? Isn't it because they too intend to tow the line of Tory Party's arrogant out of touch posh boys?

I am disappointed with the decision of 'Putting People First' councillors, because they appear to have given in to the intimidation and bullying tactics deployed by undemocratic NuLabourite Mayor of Southampton last year. Just because last year Cllr.Burk behaved like a bully in true NuLabour fashion thus denying principled Cllr Morrell and Cllr. Thomas their democratic right to put forward their alternative budget, in my opinion, is not strong enough reason for sacrificing their rights at the alter of arrogance of NuLabourites, who tend to abuse their majority in Council Chamber for silencing the minority opinion.
Rather than confronting the central government, which is the main culprit for making the financial life of all local authorities difficult, the gutless unprincpiled self serving NuLabourites are making us the people pay more for less services. It hurts my socialist pride to admit that there is lot of truth in Tory Cllr. Royston's sound bite, that while national opportunist leadership of NuLabour is paying lip service to ever increasing cost of living crisis in Southampton the NuLabour councillors led by Simon Letts and Stephen Barns-Andrews are in fact contributing to to the same problem of local tax payers. But unfortunately Cllr. Smith led Conservatives have not proposed any other alternative budget. Why not? Isn't it because they too intend to tow the line of Tory Party's arrogant out of touch posh boys? I am disappointed with the decision of 'Putting People First' councillors, because they appear to have given in to the intimidation and bullying tactics deployed by undemocratic NuLabourite Mayor of Southampton last year. Just because last year Cllr.Burk behaved like a bully in true NuLabour fashion thus denying principled Cllr Morrell and Cllr. Thomas their democratic right to put forward their alternative budget, in my opinion, is not strong enough reason for sacrificing their rights at the alter of arrogance of NuLabourites, who tend to abuse their majority in Council Chamber for silencing the minority opinion. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: -1

1:17pm Wed 12 Feb 14

SO15_ab says...

Miguel Raton wrote:
As a start impose a salary cap of £100k pa and halve all salaries above £30k pa.
Are you for real? Why on Earth would a Council worker currently earning £31,000 pa continue to work in that same role for under £16k pa?! They wouldn't, they'd leave. And before you say something stupid like "good, they can get cheaper staff in" don't because that'll just result in the hiring of incapable, inexperienced, clueless people (like you) running public services that have a direct affect on the city. And anyway, 30k a year isn’t a huge salary! I'm not sure why people like you think its fair to think Council staff should take another wage cut, at least they work for it -why not just halve benefits? (that is of course not a serious suggestion). So please think before posting such useless remarks…
[quote][p][bold]Miguel Raton[/bold] wrote: As a start impose a salary cap of £100k pa and halve all salaries above £30k pa.[/p][/quote]Are you for real? Why on Earth would a Council worker currently earning £31,000 pa continue to work in that same role for under £16k pa?! They wouldn't, they'd leave. And before you say something stupid like "good, they can get cheaper staff in" don't because that'll just result in the hiring of incapable, inexperienced, clueless people (like you) running public services that have a direct affect on the city. And anyway, 30k a year isn’t a huge salary! I'm not sure why people like you think its fair to think Council staff should take another wage cut, at least they work for it -why not just halve benefits? (that is of course not a serious suggestion). So please think before posting such useless remarks… SO15_ab
  • Score: 5

1:40pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for.
.
Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts
Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for. . Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

2:23pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

HillsidePaul wrote:
So Royston, the man who had rubbish filling the streets for weeks can't even be bothered to put forward a budget. Probably because he would have to admit that it's his Government that are the cause of these cuts.

The Libdems will of course pretend that the Government is nothing to do with them. But fair play at least they have proposed an alternative.

And as for Keith Morell the leader of the let others make the tough decisions and then pretend I have a "Magic" alternative party. If your budget last year was illegal then how about doing one that isn't. But no, going off in a sulk is much easier.

All Cllrs are elected to represent the people, how can they do that when, at the most important meeting of the year they shout and scream about what is proposed, but offer the voters no alternative options.
Dear HP

Unlike you as member of the public I went to Council meeting last year, so am aware of, what in my opinion, was most disgraceful butchery of democracy by the Mayor, who at that time happened to be certain NuLabour councillor named 'Burke', whom you should know very well. He is the same guy who exposed his real colours when he made lots of fuss about saving a number plate but could not open his otherwise big opportunist and self serving mouth to say anything against cuts in services and destruction of many jobs of trade union members.

In my view budget suggested by Cllr. Morrell and Cllr. Thomas was perfectly legal. If anybody had different opinion then he/she should have challenged in courts of law.

As you are aware it is the right of every elected member to put forward his/her views and others have right to speak in favour or against the proposals. The person called Mayor, which as you know is the guy with chain around the neck (strangely where I was born they only chained either the animals or the criminals and your ancestors used to do that to people in Africa!!!) should be making sure that meeting is conducted in orderly manner and those who want to speak are given the chance and after discussion put the proposal and if their are any amendments to vote.

But your dear friend Burke decided to abuse his position as Mayor to silence Cllr. Morrell, why? Was he doing as told to do by NuLabour whip?

Your beloved NuLabour councillors could have voted against Cllr. Morrell's budget, but if they really believe in true democracy, they should have defended the rights of minority party to speak in Counci Chamber.

As I have made it clear in my earlier comment, I think Cllr Morrell should have proposed his version of the budget, but although I am very disappointed with his decision, I can understand why he and Don have decided to make the decision not to exercise their democratic right.

If I was in their shoes, which I am not, I most certainly would have made different decision.

Finally please don't disappoint me by saying you are also supporting the loony or cowardly policy of cutting the services of people and destroying jobs of council workers rather than challenging the government in London which under all major political parties keep on making financial life of local councils very difficult.

Kind regards
[quote][p][bold]HillsidePaul[/bold] wrote: So Royston, the man who had rubbish filling the streets for weeks can't even be bothered to put forward a budget. Probably because he would have to admit that it's his Government that are the cause of these cuts. The Libdems will of course pretend that the Government is nothing to do with them. But fair play at least they have proposed an alternative. And as for Keith Morell the leader of the let others make the tough decisions and then pretend I have a "Magic" alternative party. If your budget last year was illegal then how about doing one that isn't. But no, going off in a sulk is much easier. All Cllrs are elected to represent the people, how can they do that when, at the most important meeting of the year they shout and scream about what is proposed, but offer the voters no alternative options.[/p][/quote]Dear HP Unlike you as member of the public I went to Council meeting last year, so am aware of, what in my opinion, was most disgraceful butchery of democracy by the Mayor, who at that time happened to be certain NuLabour councillor named 'Burke', whom you should know very well. He is the same guy who exposed his real colours when he made lots of fuss about saving a number plate but could not open his otherwise big opportunist and self serving mouth to say anything against cuts in services and destruction of many jobs of trade union members. In my view budget suggested by Cllr. Morrell and Cllr. Thomas was perfectly legal. If anybody had different opinion then he/she should have challenged in courts of law. As you are aware it is the right of every elected member to put forward his/her views and others have right to speak in favour or against the proposals. The person called Mayor, which as you know is the guy with chain around the neck (strangely where I was born they only chained either the animals or the criminals and your ancestors used to do that to people in Africa!!!) should be making sure that meeting is conducted in orderly manner and those who want to speak are given the chance and after discussion put the proposal and if their are any amendments to vote. But your dear friend Burke decided to abuse his position as Mayor to silence Cllr. Morrell, why? Was he doing as told to do by NuLabour whip? Your beloved NuLabour councillors could have voted against Cllr. Morrell's budget, but if they really believe in true democracy, they should have defended the rights of minority party to speak in Counci Chamber. As I have made it clear in my earlier comment, I think Cllr Morrell should have proposed his version of the budget, but although I am very disappointed with his decision, I can understand why he and Don have decided to make the decision not to exercise their democratic right. If I was in their shoes, which I am not, I most certainly would have made different decision. Finally please don't disappoint me by saying you are also supporting the loony or cowardly policy of cutting the services of people and destroying jobs of council workers rather than challenging the government in London which under all major political parties keep on making financial life of local councils very difficult. Kind regards Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 1

2:34pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for.
.
Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts
Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face?

But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for. . Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts[/p][/quote]Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face? But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 4

4:21pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Miguel Raton says...

SO15_ab wrote:
Miguel Raton wrote:
As a start impose a salary cap of £100k pa and halve all salaries above £30k pa.
Are you for real? Why on Earth would a Council worker currently earning £31,000 pa continue to work in that same role for under £16k pa?! They wouldn't, they'd leave. And before you say something stupid like "good, they can get cheaper staff in" don't because that'll just result in the hiring of incapable, inexperienced, clueless people (like you) running public services that have a direct affect on the city. And anyway, 30k a year isn’t a huge salary! I'm not sure why people like you think its fair to think Council staff should take another wage cut, at least they work for it -why not just halve benefits? (that is of course not a serious suggestion). So please think before posting such useless remarks…
Yes I am for real. The suggestion was to halve all salaries over £30k so your £31k worker would receive £30.5K, someone earning £40k would receive £35k and so on. The public sector has too many people being paid 'executive salaries' for doing non jobs or routine tasks that in the private sector command much lower market rates. If you want to retain services they have to be delivered at lower cost.
[quote][p][bold]SO15_ab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Miguel Raton[/bold] wrote: As a start impose a salary cap of £100k pa and halve all salaries above £30k pa.[/p][/quote]Are you for real? Why on Earth would a Council worker currently earning £31,000 pa continue to work in that same role for under £16k pa?! They wouldn't, they'd leave. And before you say something stupid like "good, they can get cheaper staff in" don't because that'll just result in the hiring of incapable, inexperienced, clueless people (like you) running public services that have a direct affect on the city. And anyway, 30k a year isn’t a huge salary! I'm not sure why people like you think its fair to think Council staff should take another wage cut, at least they work for it -why not just halve benefits? (that is of course not a serious suggestion). So please think before posting such useless remarks…[/p][/quote]Yes I am for real. The suggestion was to halve all salaries over £30k so your £31k worker would receive £30.5K, someone earning £40k would receive £35k and so on. The public sector has too many people being paid 'executive salaries' for doing non jobs or routine tasks that in the private sector command much lower market rates. If you want to retain services they have to be delivered at lower cost. Miguel Raton
  • Score: -3

4:47pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for.
.
Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts
Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face?

But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.
Oh dear Paramjit ..... why so agressive ..... i have obviously struck a nerve with you.
.
I quite simply asked the question ....... perhaps you dont even know !!
.
If you read the Echo on a regular basis, as i do, you would have noticed that over the last few months the Echo have attached them to three main titles/parties.
.
As regards courage and mischief ....... yes i posess them both, however, i have avoided arrogance ...... have you ?
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for. . Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts[/p][/quote]Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face? But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.[/p][/quote]Oh dear Paramjit ..... why so agressive ..... i have obviously struck a nerve with you. . I quite simply asked the question ....... perhaps you dont even know !! . If you read the Echo on a regular basis, as i do, you would have noticed that over the last few months the Echo have attached them to three main titles/parties. . As regards courage and mischief ....... yes i posess them both, however, i have avoided arrogance ...... have you ? Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -3

4:55pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

HillsidePaul wrote:
So Royston, the man who had rubbish filling the streets for weeks can't even be bothered to put forward a budget. Probably because he would have to admit that it's his Government that are the cause of these cuts.

The Libdems will of course pretend that the Government is nothing to do with them. But fair play at least they have proposed an alternative.

And as for Keith Morell the leader of the let others make the tough decisions and then pretend I have a "Magic" alternative party. If your budget last year was illegal then how about doing one that isn't. But no, going off in a sulk is much easier.

All Cllrs are elected to represent the people, how can they do that when, at the most important meeting of the year they shout and scream about what is proposed, but offer the voters no alternative options.
You say it was down to Royston that the streets were filled with rubbish?
I'm telling you it was down to certain senior officers (union supporting members) who misled their frontline workers in E + T into thinking their jobs were at risk when in reality it was the senior officers themselves who were at risk.
The senior officers couldn't go coz they spent too many years fiddling the books...
Now this Nu Labour and Union coalition ARE in charge and oh look?!
They're still fiddling the books in favour of Unions and Labour!
There'll be a criteria requirement next on all Southampton City Council job applications.
You HAVE to be a paid up Union member to apply!!
[quote][p][bold]HillsidePaul[/bold] wrote: So Royston, the man who had rubbish filling the streets for weeks can't even be bothered to put forward a budget. Probably because he would have to admit that it's his Government that are the cause of these cuts. The Libdems will of course pretend that the Government is nothing to do with them. But fair play at least they have proposed an alternative. And as for Keith Morell the leader of the let others make the tough decisions and then pretend I have a "Magic" alternative party. If your budget last year was illegal then how about doing one that isn't. But no, going off in a sulk is much easier. All Cllrs are elected to represent the people, how can they do that when, at the most important meeting of the year they shout and scream about what is proposed, but offer the voters no alternative options.[/p][/quote]You say it was down to Royston that the streets were filled with rubbish? I'm telling you it was down to certain senior officers (union supporting members) who misled their frontline workers in E + T into thinking their jobs were at risk when in reality it was the senior officers themselves who were at risk. The senior officers couldn't go coz they spent too many years fiddling the books... Now this Nu Labour and Union coalition ARE in charge and oh look?! They're still fiddling the books in favour of Unions and Labour! There'll be a criteria requirement next on all Southampton City Council job applications. You HAVE to be a paid up Union member to apply!! Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

5:32pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for.
.
Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts
Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face?

But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.
Oh dear Paramjit ..... why so agressive ..... i have obviously struck a nerve with you.
.
I quite simply asked the question ....... perhaps you dont even know !!
.
If you read the Echo on a regular basis, as i do, you would have noticed that over the last few months the Echo have attached them to three main titles/parties.
.
As regards courage and mischief ....... yes i posess them both, however, i have avoided arrogance ...... have you ?
LR please cool down.

No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word.

I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag?

Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for. . Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts[/p][/quote]Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face? But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.[/p][/quote]Oh dear Paramjit ..... why so agressive ..... i have obviously struck a nerve with you. . I quite simply asked the question ....... perhaps you dont even know !! . If you read the Echo on a regular basis, as i do, you would have noticed that over the last few months the Echo have attached them to three main titles/parties. . As regards courage and mischief ....... yes i posess them both, however, i have avoided arrogance ...... have you ?[/p][/quote]LR please cool down. No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word. I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag? Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 3

5:34pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

LR please cool down.

No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word.

I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag?

Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc.
LR please cool down. No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word. I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag? Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

Mr Burke is A Union Bully to the core.
He's been on many a board of companies offering Port services, ie fruit/cargo handling among others, yet he enforced his part in the Dock strikes with pride, his behaviour was that of a bullying instigator, so, as Mayor I thought you had to be fine upstanding citizen, how did Mr Derek Burke became Mayor of our city?
I nearlychoked on my chidgelings when I see Ms Jacqui Rayment had put him forward! ;)
Mr Burke is A Union Bully to the core. He's been on many a board of companies offering Port services, ie fruit/cargo handling among others, yet he enforced his part in the Dock strikes with pride, his behaviour was that of a bullying instigator, so, as Mayor I thought you had to be fine upstanding citizen, how did Mr Derek Burke became Mayor of our city? I nearlychoked on my chidgelings when I see Ms Jacqui Rayment had put him forward! ;) Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

6:05pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
LR please cool down.

No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word.

I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag?

Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc.
Many thanks ....... it was a genuine enquiry
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: LR please cool down. No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word. I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag? Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc.[/p][/quote]Many thanks ....... it was a genuine enquiry Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

8:09pm Wed 12 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
LR please cool down.

No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word.

I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag?

Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc.
Intelligent person? Ha!
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: LR please cool down. No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word. I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag? Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc.[/p][/quote]Intelligent person? Ha! sotonboy84
  • Score: 3

8:23pm Wed 12 Feb 14

lisa whitemore says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for.
.
Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts
Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face?

But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.
Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for. . Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts[/p][/quote]Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face? But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.[/p][/quote]Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth. lisa whitemore
  • Score: 1

9:34pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
LR please cool down.

No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word.

I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag?

Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc.
Intelligent person? Ha!
Compared to you .... i obviously am
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: LR please cool down. No you have not struck any nerve, I give you my socialist word. I must admit that am surprised at your choice of the news paper. Intelligent person like you regularly wasting money on a local rag? Seriously first time I realised that they have changed the name of their party, was few days ago when I received a letter from Keith. It could be that brand name Labor Councillors Against Cuts appeared to be suggesting that they may still be part of Miliband led Thatcherised NuLabour..... Only my guess they may have different reasons, like registering the name of party for elections etc.[/p][/quote]Intelligent person? Ha![/p][/quote]Compared to you .... i obviously am Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

9:36pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

lisa whitemore wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for.
.
Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts
Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face?

But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.
Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth.
Well you keep on responding dont you LMAO.
.
Practice what you preach ...... If you dont like it dont read ........ although i am delighted that you do
[quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for. . Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts[/p][/quote]Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face? But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.[/p][/quote]Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth.[/p][/quote]Well you keep on responding dont you LMAO. . Practice what you preach ...... If you dont like it dont read ........ although i am delighted that you do Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

10:43pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for.
.
Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts
Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face?

But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.
Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth.
Well you keep on responding dont you LMAO.
.
Practice what you preach ...... If you dont like it dont read ........ although i am delighted that you do
Only time I see you delighted would be at the misfortune of someone else. Someone you consider not to be in your 'circle' and let's face it Lone, you have suitably addressed yourself in that sense.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for. . Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts[/p][/quote]Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face? But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.[/p][/quote]Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth.[/p][/quote]Well you keep on responding dont you LMAO. . Practice what you preach ...... If you dont like it dont read ........ although i am delighted that you do[/p][/quote]Only time I see you delighted would be at the misfortune of someone else. Someone you consider not to be in your 'circle' and let's face it Lone, you have suitably addressed yourself in that sense. Ronnie G
  • Score: 0

10:03am Thu 13 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for.
.
Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts
Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face?

But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.
Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth.
Well you keep on responding dont you LMAO.
.
Practice what you preach ...... If you dont like it dont read ........ although i am delighted that you do
The Drone Ranger strikes again.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for. . Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts[/p][/quote]Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face? But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.[/p][/quote]Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth.[/p][/quote]Well you keep on responding dont you LMAO. . Practice what you preach ...... If you dont like it dont read ........ although i am delighted that you do[/p][/quote]The Drone Ranger strikes again. sotonboy84
  • Score: 1

12:31pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for.
.
Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts
Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face?

But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.
Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth.
Well you keep on responding dont you LMAO.
.
Practice what you preach ...... If you dont like it dont read ........ although i am delighted that you do
Only time I see you delighted would be at the misfortune of someone else. Someone you consider not to be in your 'circle' and let's face it Lone, you have suitably addressed yourself in that sense.
You are the one that i thought you were ...... just changed your name
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Can someone tell me what party does Morrell and Thomas stand for. . Is it .... Putting People First, Councliiors against Cuts, Labour Councillors against Cuts[/p][/quote]Why don't you pick the phone and ask them or better walk down to the meeting and have a word with them face to face? But I doubt if you will do that because in typical NuLabour style you lack the courage, and love making mischief while hiding behind user id, so do not want them to know who you are.[/p][/quote]Very Well Said PB Dont see why anyone even responds to LR as its obvious the only reason for existing on here is to fill people with Bull***t and to try and shoot down those that know & speak the truth.[/p][/quote]Well you keep on responding dont you LMAO. . Practice what you preach ...... If you dont like it dont read ........ although i am delighted that you do[/p][/quote]Only time I see you delighted would be at the misfortune of someone else. Someone you consider not to be in your 'circle' and let's face it Lone, you have suitably addressed yourself in that sense.[/p][/quote]You are the one that i thought you were ...... just changed your name Lone Ranger.
  • 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