Bid to slash number of councillors in Southampton

Daily Echo: Bid to slash number of councillors Bid to slash number of councillors

IT’S the choice of the people that could save the city hundreds of thousands of pounds and slash the number of councillors.

Under radical new plans a third of councillors in Southampton could be cut, while elections could be held once every four years.

They are just two of the possible outcomes of a major review of the city’s political map.

It means that from 2016 onwards the city could have 32 councillors instead of 48, and new electoral wards.

Consultation carried out ahead of the Labour council’s new budget for 2014/15 saw many residents suggesting councillor numbers should be cut.

The Conservative opposition have also proposed axing a third of councillors, which they say would save £250,000 per year.

Labour council leader Simon Letts says he is also “minded to seek a reduction of councillors”, although he says he is open-minded as to how many should go.

All of the party leaders have asked the Boundary Commission – the only organisation with the power to redraw boundaries – to carry out a review.

Any changes would come into effect in 2016 and would trigger city-wide elections.

With some wards, such as Bargate and Woolston, having too many people in them, the current electoral wards could be changed with new ones added.

There could also be a change to the frequency that elections are held. Currently they take place in three out of every four years, but from 2016 onwards they may only happen once every four years.

Proposals to cut the numbers of councillors have met with a mixed response.

Conservative group leader Royston Smith said: “My theory is that if you are cutting the number of staff at the council, then you should cut the number of councillors as well.

“Being a councillor and helping residents is a much quicker process these days due to email and other developments, and less support is needed, so we don’t need three councillors in each ward.”

But some Labour councillors are less sure.

Millbrook councillor Georgie Laming said: “I feel that it depends on how many residents are in each ward – three is a good number because sometimes it can ensure that you have a diverse amount of people representing the ward.”

And colleague Darren Paffey, from Peartree, said: “If the population is going up, then I would want to see that there is evidence we can carry out work to represent our constituents to a satisfactory level with fewer councillors.”

If councillors were reduced by a third, with the current council make-up, Labour would lose at least seven of their 28 councillors if numbers were reduced by a third.

The Conservatives would lose at least three from their 16.

Comments (60)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:49am Wed 26 Feb 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

I think we need be asking ourselves what kind of local democracy we want and what we should expect of our elected councillors. In comparison with its neighbours Southampton is relatively under-represented by directly elected members. In Eastleigh there are more elected local councillors (County, District and Parish/Town) than there are Council employees!

I also think Royston Smith gets it wrong when he argues that fewer council services require fewer elected members. Savage budget cuts imposed by central government on the City Council will mean more work for councillors if they are to effectively represent their local community as opposed to acting as hapless apologists for the government.

I see that the review of local electoral systems does not include options for an elected mayor which a number of cities have adopted elsewhere. The prospect of an elected mayor in Southampton - or, heaven forfend, a referendum to ask the views of the local electorate on this - induces a state of terror within the Council bureaucracy and the mainstream political party establishment.

I hope that the review of Southampton's electoral system (as it celebrates its 50th anniversary as a City) can provide a spur to local democracy and wider public participation in local democratic processes. Reducing the exercise to a cheap party political stunt as the Conservatives seem to be doing will sadly achieve the opposite.
I think we need be asking ourselves what kind of local democracy we want and what we should expect of our elected councillors. In comparison with its neighbours Southampton is relatively under-represented by directly elected members. In Eastleigh there are more elected local councillors (County, District and Parish/Town) than there are Council employees! I also think Royston Smith gets it wrong when he argues that fewer council services require fewer elected members. Savage budget cuts imposed by central government on the City Council will mean more work for councillors if they are to effectively represent their local community as opposed to acting as hapless apologists for the government. I see that the review of local electoral systems does not include options for an elected mayor which a number of cities have adopted elsewhere. The prospect of an elected mayor in Southampton - or, heaven forfend, a referendum to ask the views of the local electorate on this - induces a state of terror within the Council bureaucracy and the mainstream political party establishment. I hope that the review of Southampton's electoral system (as it celebrates its 50th anniversary as a City) can provide a spur to local democracy and wider public participation in local democratic processes. Reducing the exercise to a cheap party political stunt as the Conservatives seem to be doing will sadly achieve the opposite. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 9

8:05am Wed 26 Feb 14

aldermoorboy says...

Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -9

8:34am Wed 26 Feb 14

Brite Spark says...

I thought that a mad knifeman was on the loose.
I thought that a mad knifeman was on the loose. Brite Spark
  • Score: 1

8:49am Wed 26 Feb 14

KSO16R says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
Yawn.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]Yawn. KSO16R
  • Score: 0

9:31am Wed 26 Feb 14

FreemantleJamez says...

Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them!
Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them! FreemantleJamez
  • Score: 7

9:45am Wed 26 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

FreemantleJamez wrote:
Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them!
Not all Labour Shirley councillors you're referring to is it?!
[quote][p][bold]FreemantleJamez[/bold] wrote: Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them![/p][/quote]Not all Labour Shirley councillors you're referring to is it?! sotonboy84
  • Score: 2

9:50am Wed 26 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
Completely agree.

Labour borrow & spend with no thought to where the money's coming for & strip the city's assets. They create a welfare dependent pool of voters.

Conservatives repair the mess that Labour leave behind & support those that work hard & pay taxes or those that can't work through no fault of their own & not those that choose not to contribute due to sheer laziness.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Labour borrow & spend with no thought to where the money's coming for & strip the city's assets. They create a welfare dependent pool of voters. Conservatives repair the mess that Labour leave behind & support those that work hard & pay taxes or those that can't work through no fault of their own & not those that choose not to contribute due to sheer laziness. sotonboy84
  • Score: -5

10:13am Wed 26 Feb 14

loosehead says...

we had lower cabinet numbers under the Tories & after the mess this lot have made it ran better with less.
Why do we need three councillors to each ward? exactly what does each councillor do in each ward that say two couldn't do compared to three?
we had lower cabinet numbers under the Tories & after the mess this lot have made it ran better with less. Why do we need three councillors to each ward? exactly what does each councillor do in each ward that say two couldn't do compared to three? loosehead
  • Score: -1

10:14am Wed 26 Feb 14

loosehead says...

FreemantleJamez wrote:
Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them!
well I've e-mailed Jeremy Moulton many times & he's always replied so which Freemantle councillor are you e-mailing?
[quote][p][bold]FreemantleJamez[/bold] wrote: Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them![/p][/quote]well I've e-mailed Jeremy Moulton many times & he's always replied so which Freemantle councillor are you e-mailing? loosehead
  • Score: -1

10:45am Wed 26 Feb 14

southy says...

Not to sure about this, but what they can do is break up each ward into 3 parts or better still into 2 parts with a 3rd councilor covering both parts.

Letts said cutting the number by a third and only having elections once in four years surely cutting by a third would make elections twice in four years for the council
Not to sure about this, but what they can do is break up each ward into 3 parts or better still into 2 parts with a 3rd councilor covering both parts. Letts said cutting the number by a third and only having elections once in four years surely cutting by a third would make elections twice in four years for the council southy
  • Score: -5

10:46am Wed 26 Feb 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too!

The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it.

I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too! The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it. I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 3

10:52am Wed 26 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
we had lower cabinet numbers under the Tories & after the mess this lot have made it ran better with less.
Why do we need three councillors to each ward? exactly what does each councillor do in each ward that say two couldn't do compared to three?
Think you'll find that where two cabinet members are doing the work previously done by one, the allowance is shared, this then means we are being served better for the same amount. As a UKIP supporter I am prepared to point this out as we do not do disingenuous.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: we had lower cabinet numbers under the Tories & after the mess this lot have made it ran better with less. Why do we need three councillors to each ward? exactly what does each councillor do in each ward that say two couldn't do compared to three?[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that where two cabinet members are doing the work previously done by one, the allowance is shared, this then means we are being served better for the same amount. As a UKIP supporter I am prepared to point this out as we do not do disingenuous. Inform Al
  • Score: 1

11:05am Wed 26 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
It seems that you want all of the services ….. yet are not prepared to pay for them.
.
You’re ok ... so stuff everyone else. Don’t worry about the professional quality services required by the less well off, disabled, elderly or the general welfare of this once great city ….. just as long as you are selfishly ok and save a couple of pound a month
.
Cut everything to the bone … get it all on the cheap ….. Typically Tory … you know the price of everything the Value of Nothing
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]It seems that you want all of the services ….. yet are not prepared to pay for them. . You’re ok ... so stuff everyone else. Don’t worry about the professional quality services required by the less well off, disabled, elderly or the general welfare of this once great city ….. just as long as you are selfishly ok and save a couple of pound a month . Cut everything to the bone … get it all on the cheap ….. Typically Tory … you know the price of everything the Value of Nothing Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:09am Wed 26 Feb 14

Outside of the Box says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I think we need be asking ourselves what kind of local democracy we want and what we should expect of our elected councillors. In comparison with its neighbours Southampton is relatively under-represented by directly elected members. In Eastleigh there are more elected local councillors (County, District and Parish/Town) than there are Council employees!

I also think Royston Smith gets it wrong when he argues that fewer council services require fewer elected members. Savage budget cuts imposed by central government on the City Council will mean more work for councillors if they are to effectively represent their local community as opposed to acting as hapless apologists for the government.

I see that the review of local electoral systems does not include options for an elected mayor which a number of cities have adopted elsewhere. The prospect of an elected mayor in Southampton - or, heaven forfend, a referendum to ask the views of the local electorate on this - induces a state of terror within the Council bureaucracy and the mainstream political party establishment.

I hope that the review of Southampton's electoral system (as it celebrates its 50th anniversary as a City) can provide a spur to local democracy and wider public participation in local democratic processes. Reducing the exercise to a cheap party political stunt as the Conservatives seem to be doing will sadly achieve the opposite.
Spoken like the Labour councillor you are.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I think we need be asking ourselves what kind of local democracy we want and what we should expect of our elected councillors. In comparison with its neighbours Southampton is relatively under-represented by directly elected members. In Eastleigh there are more elected local councillors (County, District and Parish/Town) than there are Council employees! I also think Royston Smith gets it wrong when he argues that fewer council services require fewer elected members. Savage budget cuts imposed by central government on the City Council will mean more work for councillors if they are to effectively represent their local community as opposed to acting as hapless apologists for the government. I see that the review of local electoral systems does not include options for an elected mayor which a number of cities have adopted elsewhere. The prospect of an elected mayor in Southampton - or, heaven forfend, a referendum to ask the views of the local electorate on this - induces a state of terror within the Council bureaucracy and the mainstream political party establishment. I hope that the review of Southampton's electoral system (as it celebrates its 50th anniversary as a City) can provide a spur to local democracy and wider public participation in local democratic processes. Reducing the exercise to a cheap party political stunt as the Conservatives seem to be doing will sadly achieve the opposite.[/p][/quote]Spoken like the Labour councillor you are. Outside of the Box
  • Score: -2

11:09am Wed 26 Feb 14

Outside of the Box says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I think we need be asking ourselves what kind of local democracy we want and what we should expect of our elected councillors. In comparison with its neighbours Southampton is relatively under-represented by directly elected members. In Eastleigh there are more elected local councillors (County, District and Parish/Town) than there are Council employees!

I also think Royston Smith gets it wrong when he argues that fewer council services require fewer elected members. Savage budget cuts imposed by central government on the City Council will mean more work for councillors if they are to effectively represent their local community as opposed to acting as hapless apologists for the government.

I see that the review of local electoral systems does not include options for an elected mayor which a number of cities have adopted elsewhere. The prospect of an elected mayor in Southampton - or, heaven forfend, a referendum to ask the views of the local electorate on this - induces a state of terror within the Council bureaucracy and the mainstream political party establishment.

I hope that the review of Southampton's electoral system (as it celebrates its 50th anniversary as a City) can provide a spur to local democracy and wider public participation in local democratic processes. Reducing the exercise to a cheap party political stunt as the Conservatives seem to be doing will sadly achieve the opposite.
Spoken like the Labour councillor you are.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I think we need be asking ourselves what kind of local democracy we want and what we should expect of our elected councillors. In comparison with its neighbours Southampton is relatively under-represented by directly elected members. In Eastleigh there are more elected local councillors (County, District and Parish/Town) than there are Council employees! I also think Royston Smith gets it wrong when he argues that fewer council services require fewer elected members. Savage budget cuts imposed by central government on the City Council will mean more work for councillors if they are to effectively represent their local community as opposed to acting as hapless apologists for the government. I see that the review of local electoral systems does not include options for an elected mayor which a number of cities have adopted elsewhere. The prospect of an elected mayor in Southampton - or, heaven forfend, a referendum to ask the views of the local electorate on this - induces a state of terror within the Council bureaucracy and the mainstream political party establishment. I hope that the review of Southampton's electoral system (as it celebrates its 50th anniversary as a City) can provide a spur to local democracy and wider public participation in local democratic processes. Reducing the exercise to a cheap party political stunt as the Conservatives seem to be doing will sadly achieve the opposite.[/p][/quote]Spoken like the Labour councillor you are. Outside of the Box
  • Score: -3

11:09am Wed 26 Feb 14

Outside of the Box says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
I think we need be asking ourselves what kind of local democracy we want and what we should expect of our elected councillors. In comparison with its neighbours Southampton is relatively under-represented by directly elected members. In Eastleigh there are more elected local councillors (County, District and Parish/Town) than there are Council employees!

I also think Royston Smith gets it wrong when he argues that fewer council services require fewer elected members. Savage budget cuts imposed by central government on the City Council will mean more work for councillors if they are to effectively represent their local community as opposed to acting as hapless apologists for the government.

I see that the review of local electoral systems does not include options for an elected mayor which a number of cities have adopted elsewhere. The prospect of an elected mayor in Southampton - or, heaven forfend, a referendum to ask the views of the local electorate on this - induces a state of terror within the Council bureaucracy and the mainstream political party establishment.

I hope that the review of Southampton's electoral system (as it celebrates its 50th anniversary as a City) can provide a spur to local democracy and wider public participation in local democratic processes. Reducing the exercise to a cheap party political stunt as the Conservatives seem to be doing will sadly achieve the opposite.
Spoken like the Labour councillor you are.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: I think we need be asking ourselves what kind of local democracy we want and what we should expect of our elected councillors. In comparison with its neighbours Southampton is relatively under-represented by directly elected members. In Eastleigh there are more elected local councillors (County, District and Parish/Town) than there are Council employees! I also think Royston Smith gets it wrong when he argues that fewer council services require fewer elected members. Savage budget cuts imposed by central government on the City Council will mean more work for councillors if they are to effectively represent their local community as opposed to acting as hapless apologists for the government. I see that the review of local electoral systems does not include options for an elected mayor which a number of cities have adopted elsewhere. The prospect of an elected mayor in Southampton - or, heaven forfend, a referendum to ask the views of the local electorate on this - induces a state of terror within the Council bureaucracy and the mainstream political party establishment. I hope that the review of Southampton's electoral system (as it celebrates its 50th anniversary as a City) can provide a spur to local democracy and wider public participation in local democratic processes. Reducing the exercise to a cheap party political stunt as the Conservatives seem to be doing will sadly achieve the opposite.[/p][/quote]Spoken like the Labour councillor you are. Outside of the Box
  • Score: -1

11:10am Wed 26 Feb 14

Outside of the Box says...

Sorry about posting 3 times
Sorry about posting 3 times Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

11:24am Wed 26 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too!

The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it.

I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.
So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more?
It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it?
After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem?
So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then?
I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook?
Messers Furnell + Thorpe,
Ms Cathy McEwing
Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too! The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it. I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.[/p][/quote]So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more? It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it? After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem? So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then? I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook? Messers Furnell + Thorpe, Ms Cathy McEwing Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area? Ronnie G
  • Score: 1

11:40am Wed 26 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
It seems that you want all of the services ….. yet are not prepared to pay for them.
.
You’re ok ... so stuff everyone else. Don’t worry about the professional quality services required by the less well off, disabled, elderly or the general welfare of this once great city ….. just as long as you are selfishly ok and save a couple of pound a month
.
Cut everything to the bone … get it all on the cheap ….. Typically Tory … you know the price of everything the Value of Nothing
I wouldn't shout too loud.
SCC's tendering process's for companies shows that's exactly what Labour bin doing. Cutting everything to the bone, giving us cheap or no service, while tendering to their own pet projects!!
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]It seems that you want all of the services ….. yet are not prepared to pay for them. . You’re ok ... so stuff everyone else. Don’t worry about the professional quality services required by the less well off, disabled, elderly or the general welfare of this once great city ….. just as long as you are selfishly ok and save a couple of pound a month . Cut everything to the bone … get it all on the cheap ….. Typically Tory … you know the price of everything the Value of Nothing[/p][/quote]I wouldn't shout too loud. SCC's tendering process's for companies shows that's exactly what Labour bin doing. Cutting everything to the bone, giving us cheap or no service, while tendering to their own pet projects!! Ronnie G
  • Score: 2

11:51am Wed 26 Feb 14

FreemantleJamez says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
FreemantleJamez wrote:
Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them!
Not all Labour Shirley councillors you're referring to is it?!
no Labour in Millbrook
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FreemantleJamez[/bold] wrote: Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them![/p][/quote]Not all Labour Shirley councillors you're referring to is it?![/p][/quote]no Labour in Millbrook FreemantleJamez
  • Score: 3

11:53am Wed 26 Feb 14

southy says...

Ronnie G wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too!

The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it.

I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.
So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more?
It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it?
After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem?
So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then?
I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook?
Messers Furnell + Thorpe,
Ms Cathy McEwing
Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?
You got 2 out of the 3 councilors Working for Millbrook. The Labour Councilor Ex-Whip Cathy McEwing who dish out the punishment to Kieth and Don who stood up for the people who they represents, Her seat is up for Election this year in Redbridge
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too! The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it. I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.[/p][/quote]So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more? It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it? After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem? So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then? I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook? Messers Furnell + Thorpe, Ms Cathy McEwing Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?[/p][/quote]You got 2 out of the 3 councilors Working for Millbrook. The Labour Councilor Ex-Whip Cathy McEwing who dish out the punishment to Kieth and Don who stood up for the people who they represents, Her seat is up for Election this year in Redbridge southy
  • Score: 1

12:00pm Wed 26 Feb 14

southy says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
It seems that you want all of the services ….. yet are not prepared to pay for them.
.
You’re ok ... so stuff everyone else. Don’t worry about the professional quality services required by the less well off, disabled, elderly or the general welfare of this once great city ….. just as long as you are selfishly ok and save a couple of pound a month
.
Cut everything to the bone … get it all on the cheap ….. Typically Tory … you know the price of everything the Value of Nothing
I wouldn't shout too loud.
SCC's tendering process's for companies shows that's exactly what Labour bin doing. Cutting everything to the bone, giving us cheap or no service, while tendering to their own pet projects!!
So all they are really doing is then is carrying on with the Tory program of cuts So what real choice is there for people between Labour, Tory and Lib/Dem the real answer is none, they all going to do the government bidden instead of putting up a fight, in the end it will be the people who will suffer
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]It seems that you want all of the services ….. yet are not prepared to pay for them. . You’re ok ... so stuff everyone else. Don’t worry about the professional quality services required by the less well off, disabled, elderly or the general welfare of this once great city ….. just as long as you are selfishly ok and save a couple of pound a month . Cut everything to the bone … get it all on the cheap ….. Typically Tory … you know the price of everything the Value of Nothing[/p][/quote]I wouldn't shout too loud. SCC's tendering process's for companies shows that's exactly what Labour bin doing. Cutting everything to the bone, giving us cheap or no service, while tendering to their own pet projects!![/p][/quote]So all they are really doing is then is carrying on with the Tory program of cuts So what real choice is there for people between Labour, Tory and Lib/Dem the real answer is none, they all going to do the government bidden instead of putting up a fight, in the end it will be the people who will suffer southy
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Wed 26 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Ronnie G wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too!

The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it.

I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.
So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more?
It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it?
After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem?
So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then?
I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook?
Messers Furnell + Thorpe,
Ms Cathy McEwing
Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?
Ronnie, a few days ago you were rude and patronising towards Rowenna Davis during the Budget debate. Now you're doing the same to Georgie Laming.

Why do you do this? These personalised attacks may satisfy you. But they certainly don't help your case and serve only to lower the tone of the debate. If you could stick to the issues it would be better for everyone.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too! The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it. I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.[/p][/quote]So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more? It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it? After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem? So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then? I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook? Messers Furnell + Thorpe, Ms Cathy McEwing Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?[/p][/quote]Ronnie, a few days ago you were rude and patronising towards Rowenna Davis during the Budget debate. Now you're doing the same to Georgie Laming. Why do you do this? These personalised attacks may satisfy you. But they certainly don't help your case and serve only to lower the tone of the debate. If you could stick to the issues it would be better for everyone. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

12:49pm Wed 26 Feb 14

southy says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too!

The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it.

I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.
So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more?
It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it?
After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem?
So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then?
I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook?
Messers Furnell + Thorpe,
Ms Cathy McEwing
Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?
Ronnie, a few days ago you were rude and patronising towards Rowenna Davis during the Budget debate. Now you're doing the same to Georgie Laming.

Why do you do this? These personalised attacks may satisfy you. But they certainly don't help your case and serve only to lower the tone of the debate. If you could stick to the issues it would be better for everyone.
No need for rudeness I will agree But Councilors should be representing its people as to date only 2 Councilors have done and that is Don and Keith and they got punished by the Labour Whip and push and kick out of the Labour party just for doing what they was elected to do and that was to represent the people of its ward.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too! The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it. I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.[/p][/quote]So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more? It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it? After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem? So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then? I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook? Messers Furnell + Thorpe, Ms Cathy McEwing Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?[/p][/quote]Ronnie, a few days ago you were rude and patronising towards Rowenna Davis during the Budget debate. Now you're doing the same to Georgie Laming. Why do you do this? These personalised attacks may satisfy you. But they certainly don't help your case and serve only to lower the tone of the debate. If you could stick to the issues it would be better for everyone.[/p][/quote]No need for rudeness I will agree But Councilors should be representing its people as to date only 2 Councilors have done and that is Don and Keith and they got punished by the Labour Whip and push and kick out of the Labour party just for doing what they was elected to do and that was to represent the people of its ward. southy
  • Score: -2

1:16pm Wed 26 Feb 14

skeptik says...

Much of our political system is the result of 19th century changes - we now have easier ways of communicating - yet we still have 649 MPs 800 plus lords and layer upon layer of interference, from regional, county councils, town and city, local authorities, parish councils and a list of agencies and quangos. If we consider the situation is working perfectly then leave it be - I suspect many will have seen the costly failures we have had to pay for over the years. Is it party? If one party is the 'right party' why do we change? - Because they fail. Is that the party, the people in the party - or is it time to look at a system that is the one constant through the list of failures. In ten years we could be still writing UKIP or Labour Fail, LibDems and Tories screw up. Time for people to demand changes or at least a debate on change.
Much of our political system is the result of 19th century changes - we now have easier ways of communicating - yet we still have 649 MPs 800 plus lords and layer upon layer of interference, from regional, county councils, town and city, local authorities, parish councils and a list of agencies and quangos. If we consider the situation is working perfectly then leave it be - I suspect many will have seen the costly failures we have had to pay for over the years. Is it party? If one party is the 'right party' why do we change? - Because they fail. Is that the party, the people in the party - or is it time to look at a system that is the one constant through the list of failures. In ten years we could be still writing UKIP or Labour Fail, LibDems and Tories screw up. Time for people to demand changes or at least a debate on change. skeptik
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Wed 26 Feb 14

FreemantleJamez says...

loosehead wrote:
FreemantleJamez wrote:
Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them!
well I've e-mailed Jeremy Moulton many times & he's always replied so which Freemantle councillor are you e-mailing?
I'm referring to Labour Councillors in Millbrook
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FreemantleJamez[/bold] wrote: Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them![/p][/quote]well I've e-mailed Jeremy Moulton many times & he's always replied so which Freemantle councillor are you e-mailing?[/p][/quote]I'm referring to Labour Councillors in Millbrook FreemantleJamez
  • Score: 1

1:38pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too!

The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it.

I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.
So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more?
It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it?
After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem?
So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then?
I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook?
Messers Furnell + Thorpe,
Ms Cathy McEwing
Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?
Ronnie, a few days ago you were rude and patronising towards Rowenna Davis during the Budget debate. Now you're doing the same to Georgie Laming.

Why do you do this? These personalised attacks may satisfy you. But they certainly don't help your case and serve only to lower the tone of the debate. If you could stick to the issues it would be better for everyone.
He's rude and patronising to most people on here who dont share his views.
.
I think that he/she has an identity crisis ..... and doesnt like being reminded of his last posting name ....... seems to think that he/she is being ridiculed
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too! The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it. I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.[/p][/quote]So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more? It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it? After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem? So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then? I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook? Messers Furnell + Thorpe, Ms Cathy McEwing Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?[/p][/quote]Ronnie, a few days ago you were rude and patronising towards Rowenna Davis during the Budget debate. Now you're doing the same to Georgie Laming. Why do you do this? These personalised attacks may satisfy you. But they certainly don't help your case and serve only to lower the tone of the debate. If you could stick to the issues it would be better for everyone.[/p][/quote]He's rude and patronising to most people on here who dont share his views. . I think that he/she has an identity crisis ..... and doesnt like being reminded of his last posting name ....... seems to think that he/she is being ridiculed Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

2:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too!

The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it.

I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.
So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more?
It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it?
After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem?
So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then?
I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook?
Messers Furnell + Thorpe,
Ms Cathy McEwing
Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?
Ronnie, a few days ago you were rude and patronising towards Rowenna Davis during the Budget debate. Now you're doing the same to Georgie Laming.

Why do you do this? These personalised attacks may satisfy you. But they certainly don't help your case and serve only to lower the tone of the debate. If you could stick to the issues it would be better for everyone.
Walking on a wire- I was not rude or patronising to Rowenna Davis, my comment was to be taken in the context that Rowenna is being used by Labour in Southampton for their own political gain. She is far too much of a lady for Labour's idea to work.
C'mon So Why would it work if Rowenna stayed here?
I will stick to the issues I know thankyou very much.
There's far too much dick-tation in this city at present as it is.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too! The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it. I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.[/p][/quote]So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more? It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it? After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem? So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then? I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook? Messers Furnell + Thorpe, Ms Cathy McEwing Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?[/p][/quote]Ronnie, a few days ago you were rude and patronising towards Rowenna Davis during the Budget debate. Now you're doing the same to Georgie Laming. Why do you do this? These personalised attacks may satisfy you. But they certainly don't help your case and serve only to lower the tone of the debate. If you could stick to the issues it would be better for everyone.[/p][/quote]Walking on a wire- I was not rude or patronising to Rowenna Davis, my comment was to be taken in the context that Rowenna is being used by Labour in Southampton for their own political gain. She is far too much of a lady for Labour's idea to work. C'mon So Why would it work if Rowenna stayed here? I will stick to the issues I know thankyou very much. There's far too much dick-tation in this city at present as it is. Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

2:29pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

Walking on a wire.
My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered.
Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'.
I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately.
That beaut is down to Labour!
Walking on a wire. My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered. Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'. I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately. That beaut is down to Labour! Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

2:37pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

southy wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
It seems that you want all of the services ….. yet are not prepared to pay for them.
.
You’re ok ... so stuff everyone else. Don’t worry about the professional quality services required by the less well off, disabled, elderly or the general welfare of this once great city ….. just as long as you are selfishly ok and save a couple of pound a month
.
Cut everything to the bone … get it all on the cheap ….. Typically Tory … you know the price of everything the Value of Nothing
I wouldn't shout too loud.
SCC's tendering process's for companies shows that's exactly what Labour bin doing. Cutting everything to the bone, giving us cheap or no service, while tendering to their own pet projects!!
So all they are really doing is then is carrying on with the Tory program of cuts So what real choice is there for people between Labour, Tory and Lib/Dem the real answer is none, they all going to do the government bidden instead of putting up a fight, in the end it will be the people who will suffer
Southy,
Yes in the end it is always the people that suffer and when we 'dare' to speak up with the truth, attempts are made to discredit or shut us up......
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]It seems that you want all of the services ….. yet are not prepared to pay for them. . You’re ok ... so stuff everyone else. Don’t worry about the professional quality services required by the less well off, disabled, elderly or the general welfare of this once great city ….. just as long as you are selfishly ok and save a couple of pound a month . Cut everything to the bone … get it all on the cheap ….. Typically Tory … you know the price of everything the Value of Nothing[/p][/quote]I wouldn't shout too loud. SCC's tendering process's for companies shows that's exactly what Labour bin doing. Cutting everything to the bone, giving us cheap or no service, while tendering to their own pet projects!![/p][/quote]So all they are really doing is then is carrying on with the Tory program of cuts So what real choice is there for people between Labour, Tory and Lib/Dem the real answer is none, they all going to do the government bidden instead of putting up a fight, in the end it will be the people who will suffer[/p][/quote]Southy, Yes in the end it is always the people that suffer and when we 'dare' to speak up with the truth, attempts are made to discredit or shut us up...... Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

2:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

aldermoorboy says...

Labour don't understand, it is possible to have good services at sensible prices if they operate properly.

I thought Lone Ranger answer to me on the London underground strike summed up Labour mind set, you do not need people working in ticket offices like before as 90% of travellers don't use them, Lone Ranger appear to see no reason to change and ever reason to strike, similar to the Southampton council strikes.Change has to come everywhere.

Labour first, public last.
Labour don't understand, it is possible to have good services at sensible prices if they operate properly. I thought Lone Ranger answer to me on the London underground strike summed up Labour mind set, you do not need people working in ticket offices like before as 90% of travellers don't use them, Lone Ranger appear to see no reason to change and ever reason to strike, similar to the Southampton council strikes.Change has to come everywhere. Labour first, public last. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

3:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
we had lower cabinet numbers under the Tories & after the mess this lot have made it ran better with less.
Why do we need three councillors to each ward? exactly what does each councillor do in each ward that say two couldn't do compared to three?
Think you'll find that where two cabinet members are doing the work previously done by one, the allowance is shared, this then means we are being served better for the same amount. As a UKIP supporter I am prepared to point this out as we do not do disingenuous.
sorry but tell the councillors that this is the size of future wards & you'll still receive the same pay do you want to stand or not?
if they're not willing to do it with out an increase in pay deselect them & get a candidate who was willing!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: we had lower cabinet numbers under the Tories & after the mess this lot have made it ran better with less. Why do we need three councillors to each ward? exactly what does each councillor do in each ward that say two couldn't do compared to three?[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that where two cabinet members are doing the work previously done by one, the allowance is shared, this then means we are being served better for the same amount. As a UKIP supporter I am prepared to point this out as we do not do disingenuous.[/p][/quote]sorry but tell the councillors that this is the size of future wards & you'll still receive the same pay do you want to stand or not? if they're not willing to do it with out an increase in pay deselect them & get a candidate who was willing! loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher.
Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc.
Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area.

I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first.

Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.
You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too!

The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it.

I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.
So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more?
It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it?
After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem?
So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then?
I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook?
Messers Furnell + Thorpe,
Ms Cathy McEwing
Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?
You got 2 out of the 3 councilors Working for Millbrook. The Labour Councilor Ex-Whip Cathy McEwing who dish out the punishment to Kieth and Don who stood up for the people who they represents, Her seat is up for Election this year in Redbridge
so fight to oust her
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Classic Labour comment, as a council tax payer, I want lower bills not higher. Reducing Councillors should be just the start, stop paying the unions, reduce cabinet members, out source when it saves money, merge management etc etc. Labour go on about the cost of living, lets see some action in our own area. I expect none, vote Tory for decent caring councillors who put the public first. Your comment after that man's sad death in Bassett was a disgrace, you don't deserve to represent anyone.[/p][/quote]You illustrate my point very well. You prefer lower taxes and would be prepared to see reductions in local public services to achieve this. The logical extension of this line of argument would be to abolish democratically local government altogether and hand over the running of council services to private sector organisations like G4S, Atos, Serco etc. Hey why stop there? Let's apply this thinking to the NHS too! The late Sir Ian Gilmour (a moderate Tory) was fond of saying that democracy for conservatives was not something they worshipped and that if it did not achieve the necessary outcomes for them there was a 'theoretical case' for ending it. I think that most people value public services and - if they are to be paid for out of taxation - that they should be accountable in some form to them as voters. Its ultimately about democracy.[/p][/quote]So it's better to see reductions in local public services because your union pals want paying more? It's about time you Labour Councillors become accountable isn't it? After all, if it's ultimately about democracy, as you say, then whats the problem? So when did Georgieee come back on the scene then? I thought I had 3 councillors already in Millbrook? Messers Furnell + Thorpe, Ms Cathy McEwing Does the return of Student Georgieee mean that I now have 4 Labour Councillors to choose from in the Millbrook area?[/p][/quote]You got 2 out of the 3 councilors Working for Millbrook. The Labour Councilor Ex-Whip Cathy McEwing who dish out the punishment to Kieth and Don who stood up for the people who they represents, Her seat is up for Election this year in Redbridge[/p][/quote]so fight to oust her loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Wed 26 Feb 14

southy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour don't understand, it is possible to have good services at sensible prices if they operate properly.

I thought Lone Ranger answer to me on the London underground strike summed up Labour mind set, you do not need people working in ticket offices like before as 90% of travellers don't use them, Lone Ranger appear to see no reason to change and ever reason to strike, similar to the Southampton council strikes.Change has to come everywhere.

Labour first, public last.
You condemn Labour but they are only carrying on where the Torys left off the Labour Party are just lesser of the evils which is no good to the ordinary people
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour don't understand, it is possible to have good services at sensible prices if they operate properly. I thought Lone Ranger answer to me on the London underground strike summed up Labour mind set, you do not need people working in ticket offices like before as 90% of travellers don't use them, Lone Ranger appear to see no reason to change and ever reason to strike, similar to the Southampton council strikes.Change has to come everywhere. Labour first, public last.[/p][/quote]You condemn Labour but they are only carrying on where the Torys left off the Labour Party are just lesser of the evils which is no good to the ordinary people southy
  • Score: -2

3:58pm Wed 26 Feb 14

loosehead says...

I see it's Labour councillors & Labour supporters who oppose cutting the amount of councillors & the costs to us the tax payers ?
When the Tories took power in this city they & the Lib Dems took a 5.5% pay cut Labour didn't.
they then tried to get the Unions to agree the same cuts for council workers on £30,000-£60,000 but we know what happened then.
Are Labour in this to serve their electors or to make as much as they can whilst they can for example why have they increased the size of the cabinet so increasing the cost to the tax payers or cutting jobs & services to pay for those extra cabinet places?
I see it's Labour councillors & Labour supporters who oppose cutting the amount of councillors & the costs to us the tax payers ? When the Tories took power in this city they & the Lib Dems took a 5.5% pay cut Labour didn't. they then tried to get the Unions to agree the same cuts for council workers on £30,000-£60,000 but we know what happened then. Are Labour in this to serve their electors or to make as much as they can whilst they can for example why have they increased the size of the cabinet so increasing the cost to the tax payers or cutting jobs & services to pay for those extra cabinet places? loosehead
  • Score: -1

4:01pm Wed 26 Feb 14

loosehead says...

FreemantleJamez wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FreemantleJamez wrote:
Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them!
well I've e-mailed Jeremy Moulton many times & he's always replied so which Freemantle councillor are you e-mailing?
I'm referring to Labour Councillors in Millbrook
I'm sorry but with your title I thought you were from/living in Freemantle.
I wrote a post about my uncle in Winchester road who had tried many times to get his Labour Councillor to help him to no avail Moulton who isn't his councillor went to see him to help him.
then just before the local elections Kaur went to see him but after not a dickybird from her
[quote][p][bold]FreemantleJamez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FreemantleJamez[/bold] wrote: Would be helpful if the current Councillors could be bothered to reply to emails sent to them![/p][/quote]well I've e-mailed Jeremy Moulton many times & he's always replied so which Freemantle councillor are you e-mailing?[/p][/quote]I'm referring to Labour Councillors in Millbrook[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but with your title I thought you were from/living in Freemantle. I wrote a post about my uncle in Winchester road who had tried many times to get his Labour Councillor to help him to no avail Moulton who isn't his councillor went to see him to help him. then just before the local elections Kaur went to see him but after not a dickybird from her loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour don't understand, it is possible to have good services at sensible prices if they operate properly.

I thought Lone Ranger answer to me on the London underground strike summed up Labour mind set, you do not need people working in ticket offices like before as 90% of travellers don't use them, Lone Ranger appear to see no reason to change and ever reason to strike, similar to the Southampton council strikes.Change has to come everywhere.

Labour first, public last.
Totally wrong again aldermoorboy ..... You and your sidekick were attempting to highlight bad union action .... i defended the strike action as a way to save 900 jobs.
.
You saw it as a way to slag off a union who was fighting for its members.
.
Dont forget, as i have pointed out before, it was a union that fought for your Final Salary Pension.
.
You dont need to talk to me about change as you were the one quoting "current" strikes being 44 years ago and failed to recognise the changes that have taken place ..... Perhaps you are still living in the 70's.
.

.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour don't understand, it is possible to have good services at sensible prices if they operate properly. I thought Lone Ranger answer to me on the London underground strike summed up Labour mind set, you do not need people working in ticket offices like before as 90% of travellers don't use them, Lone Ranger appear to see no reason to change and ever reason to strike, similar to the Southampton council strikes.Change has to come everywhere. Labour first, public last.[/p][/quote]Totally wrong again aldermoorboy ..... You and your sidekick were attempting to highlight bad union action .... i defended the strike action as a way to save 900 jobs. . You saw it as a way to slag off a union who was fighting for its members. . Dont forget, as i have pointed out before, it was a union that fought for your Final Salary Pension. . You dont need to talk to me about change as you were the one quoting "current" strikes being 44 years ago and failed to recognise the changes that have taken place ..... Perhaps you are still living in the 70's. . . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Wed 26 Feb 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour don't understand, it is possible to have good services at sensible prices if they operate properly.

I thought Lone Ranger answer to me on the London underground strike summed up Labour mind set, you do not need people working in ticket offices like before as 90% of travellers don't use them, Lone Ranger appear to see no reason to change and ever reason to strike, similar to the Southampton council strikes.Change has to come everywhere.

Labour first, public last.
Totally wrong again aldermoorboy ..... You and your sidekick were attempting to highlight bad union action .... i defended the strike action as a way to save 900 jobs.
.
You saw it as a way to slag off a union who was fighting for its members.
.
Dont forget, as i have pointed out before, it was a union that fought for your Final Salary Pension.
.
You dont need to talk to me about change as you were the one quoting "current" strikes being 44 years ago and failed to recognise the changes that have taken place ..... Perhaps you are still living in the 70's.
.

.
actually i hope you weren't referring to me as a side kick as on the tubes I don't agree with the axing of ticket booth staff but I felt the way the Union didn't negotiate was wrong & as an old communist I knew said striking should only ever be the last resort not the first it's a pity the rail union,Unite & Unison didn't adhere to that as the near fatal loss of jobs at Grangemouth might not have gone that far
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour don't understand, it is possible to have good services at sensible prices if they operate properly. I thought Lone Ranger answer to me on the London underground strike summed up Labour mind set, you do not need people working in ticket offices like before as 90% of travellers don't use them, Lone Ranger appear to see no reason to change and ever reason to strike, similar to the Southampton council strikes.Change has to come everywhere. Labour first, public last.[/p][/quote]Totally wrong again aldermoorboy ..... You and your sidekick were attempting to highlight bad union action .... i defended the strike action as a way to save 900 jobs. . You saw it as a way to slag off a union who was fighting for its members. . Dont forget, as i have pointed out before, it was a union that fought for your Final Salary Pension. . You dont need to talk to me about change as you were the one quoting "current" strikes being 44 years ago and failed to recognise the changes that have taken place ..... Perhaps you are still living in the 70's. . .[/p][/quote]actually i hope you weren't referring to me as a side kick as on the tubes I don't agree with the axing of ticket booth staff but I felt the way the Union didn't negotiate was wrong & as an old communist I knew said striking should only ever be the last resort not the first it's a pity the rail union,Unite & Unison didn't adhere to that as the near fatal loss of jobs at Grangemouth might not have gone that far loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Wed 26 Feb 14

HillsidePaul says...

loosehead wrote:
I see it's Labour councillors & Labour supporters who oppose cutting the amount of councillors & the costs to us the tax payers ?
When the Tories took power in this city they & the Lib Dems took a 5.5% pay cut Labour didn't.
they then tried to get the Unions to agree the same cuts for council workers on £30,000-£60,000 but we know what happened then.
Are Labour in this to serve their electors or to make as much as they can whilst they can for example why have they increased the size of the cabinet so increasing the cost to the tax payers or cutting jobs & services to pay for those extra cabinet places?
The extra Cabinet members have had one previous role split between two, and they both take half pay. So there has been no extra cost to the taxpayer. You know this yet you continue to lie about it to serve your own nasty Tory agenda.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I see it's Labour councillors & Labour supporters who oppose cutting the amount of councillors & the costs to us the tax payers ? When the Tories took power in this city they & the Lib Dems took a 5.5% pay cut Labour didn't. they then tried to get the Unions to agree the same cuts for council workers on £30,000-£60,000 but we know what happened then. Are Labour in this to serve their electors or to make as much as they can whilst they can for example why have they increased the size of the cabinet so increasing the cost to the tax payers or cutting jobs & services to pay for those extra cabinet places?[/p][/quote]The extra Cabinet members have had one previous role split between two, and they both take half pay. So there has been no extra cost to the taxpayer. You know this yet you continue to lie about it to serve your own nasty Tory agenda. HillsidePaul
  • Score: 1

6:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Ronnie G says...

How can CLLR Paffey ask to see the evidence that Labour can still deliver the same level of satisfaction but with fewer councillors, it be nigh on impossible to gauge?
Surely it goes by how much work you want to put in, and your not gonna know unless you try!
If you want to put in the work then yes you'll see the evidence. If you don't want to put the work in you won't.
How can CLLR Paffey ask to see the evidence that Labour can still deliver the same level of satisfaction but with fewer councillors, it be nigh on impossible to gauge? Surely it goes by how much work you want to put in, and your not gonna know unless you try! If you want to put in the work then yes you'll see the evidence. If you don't want to put the work in you won't. Ronnie G
  • Score: 2

6:30pm Wed 26 Feb 14

loosehead says...

HillsidePaul wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I see it's Labour councillors & Labour supporters who oppose cutting the amount of councillors & the costs to us the tax payers ?
When the Tories took power in this city they & the Lib Dems took a 5.5% pay cut Labour didn't.
they then tried to get the Unions to agree the same cuts for council workers on £30,000-£60,000 but we know what happened then.
Are Labour in this to serve their electors or to make as much as they can whilst they can for example why have they increased the size of the cabinet so increasing the cost to the tax payers or cutting jobs & services to pay for those extra cabinet places?
The extra Cabinet members have had one previous role split between two, and they both take half pay. So there has been no extra cost to the taxpayer. You know this yet you continue to lie about it to serve your own nasty Tory agenda.
sorry but when the labour party first got elected they made up two extra cabinet posts which gave both those labour councillors an instant pay rise.
so are you saying the article by the Echo was a lie?
Are you saying this Labour council aren't just a bunch of liars?
I'm leaving this city so exactly what's my Tory agenda?
If you want to vote for a party that made an announcement in this paper about it's plans if elected only to call the journalist a liar after the unions rapped their knuckles then to be proven to be out & out liars who even though they could see the estimated cuts in the budget restored pay but then cut jobs & services & blamed the Government even though it was part of the plan they had called the Journalist a liar for?
If you want to blindly vote for these liars then I now know why June Bridles corrupt labour council lasted so long
[quote][p][bold]HillsidePaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I see it's Labour councillors & Labour supporters who oppose cutting the amount of councillors & the costs to us the tax payers ? When the Tories took power in this city they & the Lib Dems took a 5.5% pay cut Labour didn't. they then tried to get the Unions to agree the same cuts for council workers on £30,000-£60,000 but we know what happened then. Are Labour in this to serve their electors or to make as much as they can whilst they can for example why have they increased the size of the cabinet so increasing the cost to the tax payers or cutting jobs & services to pay for those extra cabinet places?[/p][/quote]The extra Cabinet members have had one previous role split between two, and they both take half pay. So there has been no extra cost to the taxpayer. You know this yet you continue to lie about it to serve your own nasty Tory agenda.[/p][/quote]sorry but when the labour party first got elected they made up two extra cabinet posts which gave both those labour councillors an instant pay rise. so are you saying the article by the Echo was a lie? Are you saying this Labour council aren't just a bunch of liars? I'm leaving this city so exactly what's my Tory agenda? If you want to vote for a party that made an announcement in this paper about it's plans if elected only to call the journalist a liar after the unions rapped their knuckles then to be proven to be out & out liars who even though they could see the estimated cuts in the budget restored pay but then cut jobs & services & blamed the Government even though it was part of the plan they had called the Journalist a liar for? If you want to blindly vote for these liars then I now know why June Bridles corrupt labour council lasted so long loosehead
  • Score: 3

7:39pm Wed 26 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Walking on a wire.
My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered.
Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'.
I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately.
That beaut is down to Labour!
You called Davis 'love' and 'poppet'. That's not an attempt to patronise and belittle?
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: Walking on a wire. My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered. Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'. I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately. That beaut is down to Labour![/p][/quote]You called Davis 'love' and 'poppet'. That's not an attempt to patronise and belittle? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 3

9:04pm Wed 26 Feb 14

loosehead says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Walking on a wire.
My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered.
Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'.
I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately.
That beaut is down to Labour!
You called Davis 'love' and 'poppet'. That's not an attempt to patronise and belittle?
I have nothing against her but why was she bussed in? why was it only a women only selection? Why aren't any of our locals good enough?
Is it a pretty face wins an election or will the electorate actually elect a person who's actually fought for them?
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: Walking on a wire. My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered. Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'. I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately. That beaut is down to Labour![/p][/quote]You called Davis 'love' and 'poppet'. That's not an attempt to patronise and belittle?[/p][/quote]I have nothing against her but why was she bussed in? why was it only a women only selection? Why aren't any of our locals good enough? Is it a pretty face wins an election or will the electorate actually elect a person who's actually fought for them? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:32pm Wed 26 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

loosehead wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Walking on a wire.
My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered.
Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'.
I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately.
That beaut is down to Labour!
You called Davis 'love' and 'poppet'. That's not an attempt to patronise and belittle?
I have nothing against her but why was she bussed in? why was it only a women only selection? Why aren't any of our locals good enough?
Is it a pretty face wins an election or will the electorate actually elect a person who's actually fought for them?
Those are all perfectly good questions although not the subject of this specific debate. My issue is with Ronnie G who resorts to ad hominem abuse which helps no-one.

I wish that we could have more even-tempered discussions on here when talking about issues like this. There's an important conversation to be had about how many councillors there should be, and it doesn't need to involve partisan point scoring.

One thing which really gets my goat is the point of view that local politicians somehow have their 'noses in the trough'. I know councillors of all political parties in this city. Without exception, whether I agree with their policies or not, they are all hardworking honest individuals who are trying their best to serve their community and I have a lot of respect for that. The idea that an individual councillor is somehow coining it as a result of the work they do is a silly fallacy.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: Walking on a wire. My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered. Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'. I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately. That beaut is down to Labour![/p][/quote]You called Davis 'love' and 'poppet'. That's not an attempt to patronise and belittle?[/p][/quote]I have nothing against her but why was she bussed in? why was it only a women only selection? Why aren't any of our locals good enough? Is it a pretty face wins an election or will the electorate actually elect a person who's actually fought for them?[/p][/quote]Those are all perfectly good questions although not the subject of this specific debate. My issue is with Ronnie G who resorts to ad hominem abuse which helps no-one. I wish that we could have more even-tempered discussions on here when talking about issues like this. There's an important conversation to be had about how many councillors there should be, and it doesn't need to involve partisan point scoring. One thing which really gets my goat is the point of view that local politicians somehow have their 'noses in the trough'. I know councillors of all political parties in this city. Without exception, whether I agree with their policies or not, they are all hardworking honest individuals who are trying their best to serve their community and I have a lot of respect for that. The idea that an individual councillor is somehow coining it as a result of the work they do is a silly fallacy. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

7:57am Thu 27 Feb 14

loosehead says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Walking on a wire.
My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered.
Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'.
I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately.
That beaut is down to Labour!
You called Davis 'love' and 'poppet'. That's not an attempt to patronise and belittle?
I have nothing against her but why was she bussed in? why was it only a women only selection? Why aren't any of our locals good enough?
Is it a pretty face wins an election or will the electorate actually elect a person who's actually fought for them?
Those are all perfectly good questions although not the subject of this specific debate. My issue is with Ronnie G who resorts to ad hominem abuse which helps no-one.

I wish that we could have more even-tempered discussions on here when talking about issues like this. There's an important conversation to be had about how many councillors there should be, and it doesn't need to involve partisan point scoring.

One thing which really gets my goat is the point of view that local politicians somehow have their 'noses in the trough'. I know councillors of all political parties in this city. Without exception, whether I agree with their policies or not, they are all hardworking honest individuals who are trying their best to serve their community and I have a lot of respect for that. The idea that an individual councillor is somehow coining it as a result of the work they do is a silly fallacy.
if these councillors are there out of a feeling they can do good for the city but feel the amount of councillors are just right why don't they all offer to take a pay cut of a third of there money?
this would roughly have the same effect as losing a councillor from each ward & will prove why they want to be councillors wouldn't it?
I will attack Rowenna on her statements or Labour policies but as I don't know her as a person I won't attack her.
I cannot agree with Labour tactics but is that her fault?
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: Walking on a wire. My comments are not 'personalised attacks' my comments are merely observations from what I have discovered. Should YOU or anyone take them & use them in a context that suits you then that's your issue. I haven't quite finished my project yet, but Should the Echo find fault I will be happy to show them the 'real deal'. I'm afraid The lowering of the tone was already done May 2012. I cannot claim praise for that one unfortunately. That beaut is down to Labour![/p][/quote]You called Davis 'love' and 'poppet'. That's not an attempt to patronise and belittle?[/p][/quote]I have nothing against her but why was she bussed in? why was it only a women only selection? Why aren't any of our locals good enough? Is it a pretty face wins an election or will the electorate actually elect a person who's actually fought for them?[/p][/quote]Those are all perfectly good questions although not the subject of this specific debate. My issue is with Ronnie G who resorts to ad hominem abuse which helps no-one. I wish that we could have more even-tempered discussions on here when talking about issues like this. There's an important conversation to be had about how many councillors there should be, and it doesn't need to involve partisan point scoring. One thing which really gets my goat is the point of view that local politicians somehow have their 'noses in the trough'. I know councillors of all political parties in this city. Without exception, whether I agree with their policies or not, they are all hardworking honest individuals who are trying their best to serve their community and I have a lot of respect for that. The idea that an individual councillor is somehow coining it as a result of the work they do is a silly fallacy.[/p][/quote]if these councillors are there out of a feeling they can do good for the city but feel the amount of councillors are just right why don't they all offer to take a pay cut of a third of there money? this would roughly have the same effect as losing a councillor from each ward & will prove why they want to be councillors wouldn't it? I will attack Rowenna on her statements or Labour policies but as I don't know her as a person I won't attack her. I cannot agree with Labour tactics but is that her fault? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:18am Thu 27 Feb 14

aldermoorboy says...

Lone Ranger, three points :-

1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example.

2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned.
3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier.
Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories.
Lone Ranger, three points :- 1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example. 2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned. 3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier. Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -3

11:58am Thu 27 Feb 14

southy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, three points :-

1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example.

2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned.
3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier.
Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories.
Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done that, 0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan.
And now Labour have gone the same way as the Torys of lining there own pockets.
The Car industry now days is only a shadow of its former self, production of cars are no where near the same level, they are well below now its been privatise.
The problem of the 70's Labour Government they did not put back and invest in the factorys just like Fords never they was still using tools that made planes etc.
As for going all the way and becoming Torys Labour all ready are Tory's thats why they are called Nu-Labour the Thaterites and just like the Torys they don't care about the ordinary people so long as they are ok.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, three points :- 1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example. 2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned. 3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier. Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories.[/p][/quote]Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done that, 0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan. And now Labour have gone the same way as the Torys of lining there own pockets. The Car industry now days is only a shadow of its former self, production of cars are no where near the same level, they are well below now its been privatise. The problem of the 70's Labour Government they did not put back and invest in the factorys just like Fords never they was still using tools that made planes etc. As for going all the way and becoming Torys Labour all ready are Tory's thats why they are called Nu-Labour the Thaterites and just like the Torys they don't care about the ordinary people so long as they are ok. southy
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Thu 27 Feb 14

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, three points :-

1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example.

2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned.
3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier.
Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories.
Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done that, 0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan.
And now Labour have gone the same way as the Torys of lining there own pockets.
The Car industry now days is only a shadow of its former self, production of cars are no where near the same level, they are well below now its been privatise.
The problem of the 70's Labour Government they did not put back and invest in the factorys just like Fords never they was still using tools that made planes etc.
As for going all the way and becoming Torys Labour all ready are Tory's thats why they are called Nu-Labour the Thaterites and just like the Torys they don't care about the ordinary people so long as they are ok.
what a load of rubbish! so RED KEN didn't single handedly take out the whole workforce on strike as he wanted a few days holiday then?
If a worker was found sleeping on the job & was suspended Leylands & Ford & most other factories didn't go out on strike then?
Those unions British Leyland had it in their heads that as long as the people owned them they could produce any rubbish go on strike at a drop of a match get large pay rises & hey the government wouldn't sack them or close a plant.
In the end they cut their own throats & Maggie was elected to sort out these Unions
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, three points :- 1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example. 2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned. 3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier. Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories.[/p][/quote]Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done that, 0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan. And now Labour have gone the same way as the Torys of lining there own pockets. The Car industry now days is only a shadow of its former self, production of cars are no where near the same level, they are well below now its been privatise. The problem of the 70's Labour Government they did not put back and invest in the factorys just like Fords never they was still using tools that made planes etc. As for going all the way and becoming Torys Labour all ready are Tory's thats why they are called Nu-Labour the Thaterites and just like the Torys they don't care about the ordinary people so long as they are ok.[/p][/quote]what a load of rubbish! so RED KEN didn't single handedly take out the whole workforce on strike as he wanted a few days holiday then? If a worker was found sleeping on the job & was suspended Leylands & Ford & most other factories didn't go out on strike then? Those unions British Leyland had it in their heads that as long as the people owned them they could produce any rubbish go on strike at a drop of a match get large pay rises & hey the government wouldn't sack them or close a plant. In the end they cut their own throats & Maggie was elected to sort out these Unions loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Thu 27 Feb 14

SilvanDryad says...

"Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done "0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan."

Of course they had no strikes in the 70s and the government didn't bail out British Leyland when it went bust. And all the futuristic up-to-date car models sold like hot cakes making massive profits for the company.
"Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done "0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan." Of course they had no strikes in the 70s and the government didn't bail out British Leyland when it went bust. And all the futuristic up-to-date car models sold like hot cakes making massive profits for the company. SilvanDryad
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Thu 27 Feb 14

southy says...

SilvanDryad wrote:
"Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done "0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan."

Of course they had no strikes in the 70s and the government didn't bail out British Leyland when it went bust. And all the futuristic up-to-date car models sold like hot cakes making massive profits for the company.
Do you know what the strikes was about i give a small clue "it was not about pay increases"
[quote][p][bold]SilvanDryad[/bold] wrote: "Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done "0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan." Of course they had no strikes in the 70s and the government didn't bail out British Leyland when it went bust. And all the futuristic up-to-date car models sold like hot cakes making massive profits for the company.[/p][/quote]Do you know what the strikes was about i give a small clue "it was not about pay increases" southy
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Thu 27 Feb 14

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, three points :-

1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example.

2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned.
3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier.
Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories.
Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done that, 0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan.
And now Labour have gone the same way as the Torys of lining there own pockets.
The Car industry now days is only a shadow of its former self, production of cars are no where near the same level, they are well below now its been privatise.
The problem of the 70's Labour Government they did not put back and invest in the factorys just like Fords never they was still using tools that made planes etc.
As for going all the way and becoming Torys Labour all ready are Tory's thats why they are called Nu-Labour the Thaterites and just like the Torys they don't care about the ordinary people so long as they are ok.
what a load of rubbish! so RED KEN didn't single handedly take out the whole workforce on strike as he wanted a few days holiday then?
If a worker was found sleeping on the job & was suspended Leylands & Ford & most other factories didn't go out on strike then?
Those unions British Leyland had it in their heads that as long as the people owned them they could produce any rubbish go on strike at a drop of a match get large pay rises & hey the government wouldn't sack them or close a plant.
In the end they cut their own throats & Maggie was elected to sort out these Unions
Don't talk rubbish loose Ken did not take the workers on strike, he was not even allowed to vote on what action to take, all he could do was tell the workers what the bosses had said and give them all the options that they was allowed to take. and each option was voted on. it was the workers that took the strike action, and it was not about pay increases, they was more important things on the agenda than pay increase, plus they could not go on strike for pay increase the wages was Cap at 1.5% increase for each year the cap remained in place.
Like the rest of the right wing supporters do not know what the strikes was really about., Now I know I have told you in the pass what the 70's strikes was all about, do try and remember.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, three points :- 1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example. 2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned. 3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier. Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories.[/p][/quote]Unions never destroyed the car industry it was government done that, 0ver 75% of Cars that was made by BL was exported, Government took the very large profits nationalise industry made to pay off the 3 very large debts the USA loans for WWI and WWII plus the loads that the Torys took out in the 1920/30s, which every Tory Government after the War never paid any off, Thatcher even borrowed more money against the WWII loan. And now Labour have gone the same way as the Torys of lining there own pockets. The Car industry now days is only a shadow of its former self, production of cars are no where near the same level, they are well below now its been privatise. The problem of the 70's Labour Government they did not put back and invest in the factorys just like Fords never they was still using tools that made planes etc. As for going all the way and becoming Torys Labour all ready are Tory's thats why they are called Nu-Labour the Thaterites and just like the Torys they don't care about the ordinary people so long as they are ok.[/p][/quote]what a load of rubbish! so RED KEN didn't single handedly take out the whole workforce on strike as he wanted a few days holiday then? If a worker was found sleeping on the job & was suspended Leylands & Ford & most other factories didn't go out on strike then? Those unions British Leyland had it in their heads that as long as the people owned them they could produce any rubbish go on strike at a drop of a match get large pay rises & hey the government wouldn't sack them or close a plant. In the end they cut their own throats & Maggie was elected to sort out these Unions[/p][/quote]Don't talk rubbish loose Ken did not take the workers on strike, he was not even allowed to vote on what action to take, all he could do was tell the workers what the bosses had said and give them all the options that they was allowed to take. and each option was voted on. it was the workers that took the strike action, and it was not about pay increases, they was more important things on the agenda than pay increase, plus they could not go on strike for pay increase the wages was Cap at 1.5% increase for each year the cap remained in place. Like the rest of the right wing supporters do not know what the strikes was really about., Now I know I have told you in the pass what the 70's strikes was all about, do try and remember. southy
  • Score: -1

1:19pm Thu 27 Feb 14

southy says...

You lot need to remember BL only came about because those Car Company,s that made up BL was all going to the wall though bankruptcy so instead of losing jobs the Government nationalised them, and was stream lined at the very top all the high earners in management was got rid off they was bleeding the company dry, and it was the workers that turned every one of those car companys around and made the big profit to pay off the loans that was crippling the country.
And like then as on now it the wealthy that create the debts but its the workers that have to pay them off.
You lot need to remember BL only came about because those Car Company,s that made up BL was all going to the wall though bankruptcy so instead of losing jobs the Government nationalised them, and was stream lined at the very top all the high earners in management was got rid off they was bleeding the company dry, and it was the workers that turned every one of those car companys around and made the big profit to pay off the loans that was crippling the country. And like then as on now it the wealthy that create the debts but its the workers that have to pay them off. southy
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

southy says...

Any way back to the subject of how many Councilors;
This is what I think how it should be done and the more i think about it the better the choice.
each ward broken into 2 parts each with a councilor and 1 councilor to cover both halfs.
you still have the 3 councilors but set up in a different way
Any way back to the subject of how many Councilors; This is what I think how it should be done and the more i think about it the better the choice. each ward broken into 2 parts each with a councilor and 1 councilor to cover both halfs. you still have the 3 councilors but set up in a different way southy
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, three points :-

1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example.

2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned.
3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier.
Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories.
Points 1 and 2 ... are completely wrong and inaccurate ..... now you are starting to back track by poorly attempting to justify your original comments.
.
Point 3 .... at least shows that you have a sense of humour. With the way that the Tory membership is deserting your party it is blantanly clear that your party is neither Modern or Progressive ........
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, three points :- 1/. My point is these are pointless jobs, they should go. We need jobs that are needed, we must always modernise. I believe the tubes could now be run without train drivers, re deploy them on security as an example. 2/. I picked the car industry as I am old enough to remember the unions destroying our once great industry. The sensible unions seemed to have learnt and our now our industry is great again, but it took 40 years and now it is mainly foreign owned. 3/. I am glad Labour appear to learning from the Tories and reducing the number of councillors, as e mails etc has made their work quicker and easier. Maybe some of the modern progressive Labour councillors might go all the way and become Tories.[/p][/quote]Points 1 and 2 ... are completely wrong and inaccurate ..... now you are starting to back track by poorly attempting to justify your original comments. . Point 3 .... at least shows that you have a sense of humour. With the way that the Tory membership is deserting your party it is blantanly clear that your party is neither Modern or Progressive ........ Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Thu 27 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

southy wrote:
Any way back to the subject of how many Councilors;
This is what I think how it should be done and the more i think about it the better the choice.
each ward broken into 2 parts each with a councilor and 1 councilor to cover both halfs.
you still have the 3 councilors but set up in a different way
Good luck with explaining that to the electorate! I can see what you're getting at but it would be very confusing.

I think it's important to keep a sense of proportion in this debate. Yes, email etc makes some aspects of council lord' jobs easier than it used to be. But this only frees them up to do more of the important things like helping their constituents. Remember we have always been hoped that technology will march on and give us loads more leisure time - that isn't what happens though.

A 250K saving may sound a lot but it is peanuts in the context of the city's annual budget. As I said before, councillors of all parties here generally do a **** good job and they aren't in it for monetary gain, from Royston through to TUSC. Getting rid of a third of them will not necessarily be of any benefit to the residents.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Any way back to the subject of how many Councilors; This is what I think how it should be done and the more i think about it the better the choice. each ward broken into 2 parts each with a councilor and 1 councilor to cover both halfs. you still have the 3 councilors but set up in a different way[/p][/quote]Good luck with explaining that to the electorate! I can see what you're getting at but it would be very confusing. I think it's important to keep a sense of proportion in this debate. Yes, email etc makes some aspects of council lord' jobs easier than it used to be. But this only frees them up to do more of the important things like helping their constituents. Remember we have always been hoped that technology will march on and give us loads more leisure time - that isn't what happens though. A 250K saving may sound a lot but it is peanuts in the context of the city's annual budget. As I said before, councillors of all parties here generally do a **** good job and they aren't in it for monetary gain, from Royston through to TUSC. Getting rid of a third of them will not necessarily be of any benefit to the residents. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

3:18pm Thu 27 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

I meant "councillors' jobs". But I'm liking 'council lords' quite a lot now.
I meant "councillors' jobs". But I'm liking 'council lords' quite a lot now. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

3:34pm Thu 27 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

The censored word **** sounds the same as the things that beavers build. I'm hoping to at least get away with 'beaver'. What a great website this isn't.
The censored word **** sounds the same as the things that beavers build. I'm hoping to at least get away with 'beaver'. What a great website this isn't. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

3:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

southy says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
Any way back to the subject of how many Councilors;
This is what I think how it should be done and the more i think about it the better the choice.
each ward broken into 2 parts each with a councilor and 1 councilor to cover both halfs.
you still have the 3 councilors but set up in a different way
Good luck with explaining that to the electorate! I can see what you're getting at but it would be very confusing.

I think it's important to keep a sense of proportion in this debate. Yes, email etc makes some aspects of council lord' jobs easier than it used to be. But this only frees them up to do more of the important things like helping their constituents. Remember we have always been hoped that technology will march on and give us loads more leisure time - that isn't what happens though.

A 250K saving may sound a lot but it is peanuts in the context of the city's annual budget. As I said before, councillors of all parties here generally do a **** good job and they aren't in it for monetary gain, from Royston through to TUSC. Getting rid of a third of them will not necessarily be of any benefit to the residents.
It could be explain easy enough, I think
That 250k saving will only happen if they can lose 2 out of the 3 Election dates/years, I am showing a way where you can still have 3 councilors per ward and still save 250k, just by having 1 election year in 4 years.
Councilors do not get paid a wage, they have a allowances which is controlled by Government and is allotted to each council to the number of councilors that it as.

there would of been more leisure time if government had listen to the Unions back in the 70's, it was all ready been work on with the technology racing forward and population growing, the unions wanted to reduce the working week down to 30 hour with out losing the power of earning, this would of created more jobs to counteract the technology improvements, but the 80's saw the advent of greed with the Thatcher government, the destruction of industry the increase of unemployment
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Any way back to the subject of how many Councilors; This is what I think how it should be done and the more i think about it the better the choice. each ward broken into 2 parts each with a councilor and 1 councilor to cover both halfs. you still have the 3 councilors but set up in a different way[/p][/quote]Good luck with explaining that to the electorate! I can see what you're getting at but it would be very confusing. I think it's important to keep a sense of proportion in this debate. Yes, email etc makes some aspects of council lord' jobs easier than it used to be. But this only frees them up to do more of the important things like helping their constituents. Remember we have always been hoped that technology will march on and give us loads more leisure time - that isn't what happens though. A 250K saving may sound a lot but it is peanuts in the context of the city's annual budget. As I said before, councillors of all parties here generally do a **** good job and they aren't in it for monetary gain, from Royston through to TUSC. Getting rid of a third of them will not necessarily be of any benefit to the residents.[/p][/quote]It could be explain easy enough, I think That 250k saving will only happen if they can lose 2 out of the 3 Election dates/years, I am showing a way where you can still have 3 councilors per ward and still save 250k, just by having 1 election year in 4 years. Councilors do not get paid a wage, they have a allowances which is controlled by Government and is allotted to each council to the number of councilors that it as. there would of been more leisure time if government had listen to the Unions back in the 70's, it was all ready been work on with the technology racing forward and population growing, the unions wanted to reduce the working week down to 30 hour with out losing the power of earning, this would of created more jobs to counteract the technology improvements, but the 80's saw the advent of greed with the Thatcher government, the destruction of industry the increase of unemployment southy
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Thu 27 Feb 14

southy says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
The censored word **** sounds the same as the things that beavers build. I'm hoping to at least get away with 'beaver'. What a great website this isn't.
try just using Dam or Dam n
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: The censored word **** sounds the same as the things that beavers build. I'm hoping to at least get away with 'beaver'. What a great website this isn't.[/p][/quote]try just using Dam or Dam n southy
  • Score: 0

2:06am Fri 28 Feb 14

After8UK says...

southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
Any way back to the subject of how many Councilors;
This is what I think how it should be done and the more i think about it the better the choice.
each ward broken into 2 parts each with a councilor and 1 councilor to cover both halfs.
you still have the 3 councilors but set up in a different way
Good luck with explaining that to the electorate! I can see what you're getting at but it would be very confusing.

I think it's important to keep a sense of proportion in this debate. Yes, email etc makes some aspects of council lord' jobs easier than it used to be. But this only frees them up to do more of the important things like helping their constituents. Remember we have always been hoped that technology will march on and give us loads more leisure time - that isn't what happens though.

A 250K saving may sound a lot but it is peanuts in the context of the city's annual budget. As I said before, councillors of all parties here generally do a **** good job and they aren't in it for monetary gain, from Royston through to TUSC. Getting rid of a third of them will not necessarily be of any benefit to the residents.
It could be explain easy enough, I think
That 250k saving will only happen if they can lose 2 out of the 3 Election dates/years, I am showing a way where you can still have 3 councilors per ward and still save 250k, just by having 1 election year in 4 years.
Councilors do not get paid a wage, they have a allowances which is controlled by Government and is allotted to each council to the number of councilors that it as.

there would of been more leisure time if government had listen to the Unions back in the 70's, it was all ready been work on with the technology racing forward and population growing, the unions wanted to reduce the working week down to 30 hour with out losing the power of earning, this would of created more jobs to counteract the technology improvements, but the 80's saw the advent of greed with the Thatcher government, the destruction of industry the increase of unemployment
I'm afraid Southy is wrong. The government does not set the allowances for councillors. The council does. Each council has different rates for allowances.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Any way back to the subject of how many Councilors; This is what I think how it should be done and the more i think about it the better the choice. each ward broken into 2 parts each with a councilor and 1 councilor to cover both halfs. you still have the 3 councilors but set up in a different way[/p][/quote]Good luck with explaining that to the electorate! I can see what you're getting at but it would be very confusing. I think it's important to keep a sense of proportion in this debate. Yes, email etc makes some aspects of council lord' jobs easier than it used to be. But this only frees them up to do more of the important things like helping their constituents. Remember we have always been hoped that technology will march on and give us loads more leisure time - that isn't what happens though. A 250K saving may sound a lot but it is peanuts in the context of the city's annual budget. As I said before, councillors of all parties here generally do a **** good job and they aren't in it for monetary gain, from Royston through to TUSC. Getting rid of a third of them will not necessarily be of any benefit to the residents.[/p][/quote]It could be explain easy enough, I think That 250k saving will only happen if they can lose 2 out of the 3 Election dates/years, I am showing a way where you can still have 3 councilors per ward and still save 250k, just by having 1 election year in 4 years. Councilors do not get paid a wage, they have a allowances which is controlled by Government and is allotted to each council to the number of councilors that it as. there would of been more leisure time if government had listen to the Unions back in the 70's, it was all ready been work on with the technology racing forward and population growing, the unions wanted to reduce the working week down to 30 hour with out losing the power of earning, this would of created more jobs to counteract the technology improvements, but the 80's saw the advent of greed with the Thatcher government, the destruction of industry the increase of unemployment[/p][/quote]I'm afraid Southy is wrong. The government does not set the allowances for councillors. The council does. Each council has different rates for allowances. After8UK
  • Score: 1

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