Electoral battleground will be roads, jobs and cuts

Electoral battleground will be roads, jobs and cuts

Electoral battleground will be roads, jobs and cuts

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

LABOUR’S record in office in Southampton is under the spotlight as the city’s election battle heats up.

With thousands of residents set to vote in city council elections on May 22, opponents of the party have accused them of breaking promises and not doing enough to protect jobs.

But Labour chiefs have defended their record since sweeping to power in the last elections in 2012, saying they have kept job losses to a minimum in the face of “vicious” Government funding cuts.

The current balance of the council means Labour are highly likely to remain in power, but it is possible they could get a bloody nose in a couple of seats.

Since Labour’s landslide win in May 2012, more than £30 million of service cuts have been rubberstamped, while more than 300 jobs have been axed.

And with £30 million more in services predicted to go next year alone, austerity and its impact on the city has been a hot topic on doorsteps across Southampton.

The state of the city’s roads has also been a key issue, with each party promising to carry out improvements, along with the cleanliness of the city’s parks and streets plus parking.

David Fuller, a former Conservative councillor who is standing for the party in Bitterne, said: “I think people have been incredibly disappointed with Labour. They went into the 2012 election with a big manifesto of commitments which quite frankly they have completely put aside.

“They said they would protect jobs, and yet jobs have gone, and they promised to spend more on Sure Start Centres and libraries.

“People keep talking about a cost of living crisis but here in Southampton Labour are creating one, with council tax going up by as much as 16 per cent for elderly residents.”

He says the Conservatives’ alternative would include sharing more services with other councils and authorities, saving millions of pounds each year in the process.

Across the other side of the political spectrum, independent anti-cuts councillor Keith Morrell, who is standing for re-election in Coxford in tandem with the Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts, says Labour have failed to stand up to the coalition Government’s austerity drive.

He said: “Labour should be aware that amongst ordinary working people their failure to do anything other than simply caving in to Government diktats is losing them support.

Labour should recognise that they haven’t presented an alternative to the Tories.”

But Labour council leader Simon Letts, who is competing with Mr Fuller to be re-elected in Bitterne, says his authority has “kept job losses to a minimum”, with “fewer than 12” people leaving the council since May 2012 through compulsory redundancies.

He added: “We also ended the long-running industrial dispute which left a million rotting bin bags on the city streets and have established positive industrial relations.

“We’ve introduced a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) licensing scheme which is only the second or third of its kind in the country, and will help bring the private renting market under control.

Innovative “And we also successfully bid for £8 million from the Government for a glass recycling service for the first time here.

“In the background of vicious cuts from central Government we are still delivering innovative new services.”

Labour has unveiled a 50-point manifesto with key points on building the first new council houses for a generation, doubling investment in improving the city’s roads and creating new jobs.

The Liberal Democrats have also unveiled their “charter” of priorities for the city, which include keeping council tax low, requiring all HMOs to be licensed, reversing charges for first residents’ parking passes introduced by Labour, and campaigning to provide more jobs.

Party leader Cllr Adrian Vinson, who is also up for re-election in Portswood, said: “We will prioritise scarce resources for those most in need and maintaining and improving the quality of life in our neighbourhoods.”

UKIP is looking to make a splash after coming second in last year’s Woolston by-election and while enjoying soaring poll ratings.

The party has fielded candidates in elections since 2000, but is yet to win its first seat on the council. Among its policies for Southampton are ensuring new people to the city are supported with learning English and assimilated into the community, although they would have to contribute towards the cost, and helping young people find training and work opportunities.

Similarly to the Conservatives, UKIP is also against the controversial evening city centre parking charges brought in by Labour.

Millbrook candidate Pearline Hingston said: “UKIP candidates standing in the local council elections provide an alternative to the tired old parties. We pledge to follow the will of the communities we represent and always put their best interests first.”

Sustainable transport and improving the city’s air quality – an issue highlighted recently by the World Health Organisation – are among the Green Party’s key objectives.

Chris Bluemel, the party’s candidate in Freemantle, said: “We are campaigning against all forms of large biomass energy production and any subsidies being delivered for it. The quality of air in Southampton is appalling due to the city’s transport congestion.”

Comments (87)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:53am Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Building of new Council homes How many Labour. You only build new council homes to the number Government told you can build.
I will take time in reminding people of the Redbridge Ward it was our Councillor who is up for election this year Labour Catherine McEwing who was Labour whip at the time when Labour punish Don and Keith in the Coxford ward for representing the people of there ward, Labour as forgotten the people it is meant to represent the majority the workers but still want there vote and there Union money, It time for people to start thinking what do Labour really represent its no longer the majority they are just another Tory party that will do every thing the Government tells them to do, I do not call that taking the fight to government like promise by Councillor Letts at a TUSK meeting.
Then we got the Torys well we all know that they will not represent the ordinary people they are for big business and are ruled by them.
Lib/Dems have not proven to be any thing different from the Torys and Labour another party that will roll over for the government.
Greens well I did have high hopes for them till they showed there true colours in Brighton and Bristol they could of made a big difference in these 2 councils but did not they went along with Government cuts and policy and implemented cuts and even took an OAP to court to get evicted from her home.
UKIP well not a lot of good can be said about them also, where they do have a few Councillors left they lost a load at the last local elections they to will do what the government tells them to do and implement cuts, mind you they only have the one policy of immigration blaming immigrates for the ills of this country.
The TUSC are the only ones that will take the fight to government and fight them all the way, the reason for this is that they are ordinary people off the streets all are workers that stand in elections and know what people wants.
Building of new Council homes How many Labour. You only build new council homes to the number Government told you can build. I will take time in reminding people of the Redbridge Ward it was our Councillor who is up for election this year Labour Catherine McEwing who was Labour whip at the time when Labour punish Don and Keith in the Coxford ward for representing the people of there ward, Labour as forgotten the people it is meant to represent the majority the workers but still want there vote and there Union money, It time for people to start thinking what do Labour really represent its no longer the majority they are just another Tory party that will do every thing the Government tells them to do, I do not call that taking the fight to government like promise by Councillor Letts at a TUSK meeting. Then we got the Torys well we all know that they will not represent the ordinary people they are for big business and are ruled by them. Lib/Dems have not proven to be any thing different from the Torys and Labour another party that will roll over for the government. Greens well I did have high hopes for them till they showed there true colours in Brighton and Bristol they could of made a big difference in these 2 councils but did not they went along with Government cuts and policy and implemented cuts and even took an OAP to court to get evicted from her home. UKIP well not a lot of good can be said about them also, where they do have a few Councillors left they lost a load at the last local elections they to will do what the government tells them to do and implement cuts, mind you they only have the one policy of immigration blaming immigrates for the ills of this country. The TUSC are the only ones that will take the fight to government and fight them all the way, the reason for this is that they are ordinary people off the streets all are workers that stand in elections and know what people wants. southy
  • Score: -10

11:54am Mon 12 May 14

KSO16R says...

Labour did protect the jobs . . They protected the value of those jobs.
Labour did protect the jobs . . They protected the value of those jobs. KSO16R
  • Score: -9

12:01pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

KSO16R wrote:
Labour did protect the jobs . . They protected the value of those jobs.
That they did but how ever they are close to what the Torys said how many job loses that there would be and that is not a win its a lost, even low the Tory axe would of cost more jobs it would not off been that many more.
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: Labour did protect the jobs . . They protected the value of those jobs.[/p][/quote]That they did but how ever they are close to what the Torys said how many job loses that there would be and that is not a win its a lost, even low the Tory axe would of cost more jobs it would not off been that many more. southy
  • Score: -11

12:05pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Building of new Council homes How many Labour. You only build new council homes to the number Government told you can build.
I will take time in reminding people of the Redbridge Ward it was our Councillor who is up for election this year Labour Catherine McEwing who was Labour whip at the time when Labour punish Don and Keith in the Coxford ward for representing the people of there ward, Labour as forgotten the people it is meant to represent the majority the workers but still want there vote and there Union money, It time for people to start thinking what do Labour really represent its no longer the majority they are just another Tory party that will do every thing the Government tells them to do, I do not call that taking the fight to government like promise by Councillor Letts at a TUSK meeting.
Then we got the Torys well we all know that they will not represent the ordinary people they are for big business and are ruled by them.
Lib/Dems have not proven to be any thing different from the Torys and Labour another party that will roll over for the government.
Greens well I did have high hopes for them till they showed there true colours in Brighton and Bristol they could of made a big difference in these 2 councils but did not they went along with Government cuts and policy and implemented cuts and even took an OAP to court to get evicted from her home.
UKIP well not a lot of good can be said about them also, where they do have a few Councillors left they lost a load at the last local elections they to will do what the government tells them to do and implement cuts, mind you they only have the one policy of immigration blaming immigrates for the ills of this country.
The TUSC are the only ones that will take the fight to government and fight them all the way, the reason for this is that they are ordinary people off the streets all are workers that stand in elections and know what people wants.
The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Building of new Council homes How many Labour. You only build new council homes to the number Government told you can build. I will take time in reminding people of the Redbridge Ward it was our Councillor who is up for election this year Labour Catherine McEwing who was Labour whip at the time when Labour punish Don and Keith in the Coxford ward for representing the people of there ward, Labour as forgotten the people it is meant to represent the majority the workers but still want there vote and there Union money, It time for people to start thinking what do Labour really represent its no longer the majority they are just another Tory party that will do every thing the Government tells them to do, I do not call that taking the fight to government like promise by Councillor Letts at a TUSK meeting. Then we got the Torys well we all know that they will not represent the ordinary people they are for big business and are ruled by them. Lib/Dems have not proven to be any thing different from the Torys and Labour another party that will roll over for the government. Greens well I did have high hopes for them till they showed there true colours in Brighton and Bristol they could of made a big difference in these 2 councils but did not they went along with Government cuts and policy and implemented cuts and even took an OAP to court to get evicted from her home. UKIP well not a lot of good can be said about them also, where they do have a few Councillors left they lost a load at the last local elections they to will do what the government tells them to do and implement cuts, mind you they only have the one policy of immigration blaming immigrates for the ills of this country. The TUSC are the only ones that will take the fight to government and fight them all the way, the reason for this is that they are ordinary people off the streets all are workers that stand in elections and know what people wants.[/p][/quote]The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it. Torchie1
  • Score: 12

12:16pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 says...
The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it.

Is that why by-elections up North have been won by TUSC in local elections people are starting to look at the TUSK, No new party as won a elections straight off and TUSK as had the lest amount of media coverage even when TUSK as meet the Media min number of candidates required for media coverage they still will not give the coverage, they do not want people to know that TUSK is out there for them and its a party made up from people off the streets and it is run by people off the streets.
Torchie1 says... The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it. Is that why by-elections up North have been won by TUSC in local elections people are starting to look at the TUSK, No new party as won a elections straight off and TUSK as had the lest amount of media coverage even when TUSK as meet the Media min number of candidates required for media coverage they still will not give the coverage, they do not want people to know that TUSK is out there for them and its a party made up from people off the streets and it is run by people off the streets. southy
  • Score: -8

12:25pm Mon 12 May 14

100%HANTSBOY says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 says...
The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it.

Is that why by-elections up North have been won by TUSC in local elections people are starting to look at the TUSK, No new party as won a elections straight off and TUSK as had the lest amount of media coverage even when TUSK as meet the Media min number of candidates required for media coverage they still will not give the coverage, they do not want people to know that TUSK is out there for them and its a party made up from people off the streets and it is run by people off the streets.
TusK ? Who are TUSK ?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Torchie1 says... The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it. Is that why by-elections up North have been won by TUSC in local elections people are starting to look at the TUSK, No new party as won a elections straight off and TUSK as had the lest amount of media coverage even when TUSK as meet the Media min number of candidates required for media coverage they still will not give the coverage, they do not want people to know that TUSK is out there for them and its a party made up from people off the streets and it is run by people off the streets.[/p][/quote]TusK ? Who are TUSK ? 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 10

12:27pm Mon 12 May 14

100%HANTSBOY says...

Is there an Elephant in the room?
Is there an Elephant in the room? 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 5

12:29pm Mon 12 May 14

George4th says...

Can someone please tell me what a Labour Council has ever done for the City of Southampton?
Can someone please tell me what a Labour Council has ever done for the City of Southampton? George4th
  • Score: 15

12:34pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 says...
The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it.

Is that why by-elections up North have been won by TUSC in local elections people are starting to look at the TUSK, No new party as won a elections straight off and TUSK as had the lest amount of media coverage even when TUSK as meet the Media min number of candidates required for media coverage they still will not give the coverage, they do not want people to know that TUSK is out there for them and its a party made up from people off the streets and it is run by people off the streets.
You always conjure up a positive message to back up your claims, you always refuse to offer a source for your information and 'the Tusc' always fails spectacularly when tested at elections. Could I ask why you are no longer the Redbridge candidate for 'the Tusc' or are you trying to keep that a secret as well?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Torchie1 says... The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it. Is that why by-elections up North have been won by TUSC in local elections people are starting to look at the TUSK, No new party as won a elections straight off and TUSK as had the lest amount of media coverage even when TUSK as meet the Media min number of candidates required for media coverage they still will not give the coverage, they do not want people to know that TUSK is out there for them and its a party made up from people off the streets and it is run by people off the streets.[/p][/quote]You always conjure up a positive message to back up your claims, you always refuse to offer a source for your information and 'the Tusc' always fails spectacularly when tested at elections. Could I ask why you are no longer the Redbridge candidate for 'the Tusc' or are you trying to keep that a secret as well? Torchie1
  • Score: 12

12:34pm Mon 12 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 says...
The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it.

Is that why by-elections up North have been won by TUSC in local elections people are starting to look at the TUSK, No new party as won a elections straight off and TUSK as had the lest amount of media coverage even when TUSK as meet the Media min number of candidates required for media coverage they still will not give the coverage, they do not want people to know that TUSK is out there for them and its a party made up from people off the streets and it is run by people off the streets.
.. I'll ask you again. Where and when were these by-election victories?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Torchie1 says... The ongoing problem that you haven't been able to solve is how to get people to vote for 'the Tusc', or is it because people aren't stupid enough to vote for a party that makes promises that it will never be able to deliver on? You produce a list of political groups that all attract large numbers of votes even though your opinion is that they are all wrong. One day it may dawn on you that it is you that is out of step with the rest of the population but I know that you will never admit it. Is that why by-elections up North have been won by TUSC in local elections people are starting to look at the TUSK, No new party as won a elections straight off and TUSK as had the lest amount of media coverage even when TUSK as meet the Media min number of candidates required for media coverage they still will not give the coverage, they do not want people to know that TUSK is out there for them and its a party made up from people off the streets and it is run by people off the streets.[/p][/quote].. I'll ask you again. Where and when were these by-election victories? freefinker
  • Score: 14

12:36pm Mon 12 May 14

100%HANTSBOY says...

Sanitation, Medicine, Education, Wine, Public Order, Irrigation, Roads, the fresh-water system, and Public Health....oh no sorry,that was the Romans!
Sanitation, Medicine, Education, Wine, Public Order, Irrigation, Roads, the fresh-water system, and Public Health....oh no sorry,that was the Romans! 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 10

12:38pm Mon 12 May 14

100%HANTSBOY says...

100%HANTSBOY wrote:
Sanitation, Medicine, Education, Wine, Public Order, Irrigation, Roads, the fresh-water system, and Public Health....oh no sorry,that was the Romans!
@George 4th
[quote][p][bold]100%HANTSBOY[/bold] wrote: Sanitation, Medicine, Education, Wine, Public Order, Irrigation, Roads, the fresh-water system, and Public Health....oh no sorry,that was the Romans![/p][/quote]@George 4th 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 5

1:00pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area.
Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area. southy
  • Score: -7

1:24pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area.
While you're in the mood to avoid giving straight answers can I ask how you feel about the lack of media coverage being offered to Elvis loves Pets, Monster Raving Loony Party, Beer, Baccy and Crumpet Party, and all of the other groups that regularly trounce 'the Tusc' at elections? Surely as an advocate of fair play you should be arguing their corner as well and in reality they are more entitled to air time as they always take more votes than 'the Tusc'. I won't hold my breath waiting for a sensible answer.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area.[/p][/quote]While you're in the mood to avoid giving straight answers can I ask how you feel about the lack of media coverage being offered to Elvis loves Pets, Monster Raving Loony Party, Beer, Baccy and Crumpet Party, and all of the other groups that regularly trounce 'the Tusc' at elections? Surely as an advocate of fair play you should be arguing their corner as well and in reality they are more entitled to air time as they always take more votes than 'the Tusc'. I won't hold my breath waiting for a sensible answer. Torchie1
  • Score: 11

1:31pm Mon 12 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area.
.. so, you're not going to tell us?
I can only assume they are imaginary - victories only in your deluded mind.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area.[/p][/quote].. so, you're not going to tell us? I can only assume they are imaginary - victories only in your deluded mind. freefinker
  • Score: 6

1:54pm Mon 12 May 14

KSO16R says...

100%HANTSBOY wrote:
Sanitation, Medicine, Education, Wine, Public Order, Irrigation, Roads, the fresh-water system, and Public Health....oh no sorry,that was the Romans!
And the Romans were an example of centralised government
[quote][p][bold]100%HANTSBOY[/bold] wrote: Sanitation, Medicine, Education, Wine, Public Order, Irrigation, Roads, the fresh-water system, and Public Health....oh no sorry,that was the Romans![/p][/quote]And the Romans were an example of centralised government KSO16R
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Mon 12 May 14

KSO16R says...

I see we have a few, perhaps not so, ragged trousered philanthropist s posti g usual tory propaganda.
I see we have a few, perhaps not so, ragged trousered philanthropist s posti g usual tory propaganda. KSO16R
  • Score: -4

2:14pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area.
While you're in the mood to avoid giving straight answers can I ask how you feel about the lack of media coverage being offered to Elvis loves Pets, Monster Raving Loony Party, Beer, Baccy and Crumpet Party, and all of the other groups that regularly trounce 'the Tusc' at elections? Surely as an advocate of fair play you should be arguing their corner as well and in reality they are more entitled to air time as they always take more votes than 'the Tusc'. I won't hold my breath waiting for a sensible answer.
As far as I am concern all partys should get equal amount but they don't, the Media is owned, Run and Controlled by the Right wing.any party that is center ground or to the Left will get little media coverage as possible
It was the media that set down the rules of how many candidates are needed to get full media coverage and when that happens like TUSK have done this year they still refuse to give full media coverage.
Like Question Time in Southampton, they would not let any TUSK reps on the panel they would not let them in as part of the audience to ask Questions.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area.[/p][/quote]While you're in the mood to avoid giving straight answers can I ask how you feel about the lack of media coverage being offered to Elvis loves Pets, Monster Raving Loony Party, Beer, Baccy and Crumpet Party, and all of the other groups that regularly trounce 'the Tusc' at elections? Surely as an advocate of fair play you should be arguing their corner as well and in reality they are more entitled to air time as they always take more votes than 'the Tusc'. I won't hold my breath waiting for a sensible answer.[/p][/quote]As far as I am concern all partys should get equal amount but they don't, the Media is owned, Run and Controlled by the Right wing.any party that is center ground or to the Left will get little media coverage as possible It was the media that set down the rules of how many candidates are needed to get full media coverage and when that happens like TUSK have done this year they still refuse to give full media coverage. Like Question Time in Southampton, they would not let any TUSK reps on the panel they would not let them in as part of the audience to ask Questions. southy
  • Score: -2

2:24pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested. southy
  • Score: -4

2:40pm Mon 12 May 14

StevenGalton says...

Interesting Labour point to the £8 million they secured from the government for glass recycling - this is the same bid that promised to provide a FREE greenwaste collection service if it was successful.

Labour broke this promise and in charging for greenwaste collections Labour have now put at risk future government funding and decreased the recycling levels as some people now put greenwaste in the ordinary green bins rather than recycle it!

This is before you mention the increase in street uncleanliness as residents will now no longer sweep the verges or collect leaves from the highway if they have no way to dispose of them once collected...
Interesting Labour point to the £8 million they secured from the government for glass recycling - this is the same bid that promised to provide a FREE greenwaste collection service if it was successful. Labour broke this promise and in charging for greenwaste collections Labour have now put at risk future government funding and decreased the recycling levels as some people now put greenwaste in the ordinary green bins rather than recycle it! This is before you mention the increase in street uncleanliness as residents will now no longer sweep the verges or collect leaves from the highway if they have no way to dispose of them once collected... StevenGalton
  • Score: 8

2:40pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area.
While you're in the mood to avoid giving straight answers can I ask how you feel about the lack of media coverage being offered to Elvis loves Pets, Monster Raving Loony Party, Beer, Baccy and Crumpet Party, and all of the other groups that regularly trounce 'the Tusc' at elections? Surely as an advocate of fair play you should be arguing their corner as well and in reality they are more entitled to air time as they always take more votes than 'the Tusc'. I won't hold my breath waiting for a sensible answer.
As far as I am concern all partys should get equal amount but they don't, the Media is owned, Run and Controlled by the Right wing.any party that is center ground or to the Left will get little media coverage as possible
It was the media that set down the rules of how many candidates are needed to get full media coverage and when that happens like TUSK have done this year they still refuse to give full media coverage.
Like Question Time in Southampton, they would not let any TUSK reps on the panel they would not let them in as part of the audience to ask Questions.
The producers of Question Time ask everyone to answer a simple questionnaire requiring seventeen answers so that they can supply a balanced audience. You have to accept that minority groups are never going to get on the panel, and having seen some rambling nut-jobs that get an opportunity to speak from the audience in the past, I can't begin to think what you put down on your application to get all of you refused entry. Is the reality that only one of you applied and because you didn't make it past the screening process then the usual paranoia took over and in the absence of Margaret Thatcher to blame, you decided that the whole of the media has somehow united to join forces against you?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well free 2 was in the same area, do some research 1 was a hand down no competition as the locals refuse to give any of the other party,s the 10 signatures required to get pass the first section of a local election, it was uncontested and all party,s including UKIP and Greens put possible candidates up. It comes to some thing when you can't get the 10 signatures required for the second time in the area.[/p][/quote]While you're in the mood to avoid giving straight answers can I ask how you feel about the lack of media coverage being offered to Elvis loves Pets, Monster Raving Loony Party, Beer, Baccy and Crumpet Party, and all of the other groups that regularly trounce 'the Tusc' at elections? Surely as an advocate of fair play you should be arguing their corner as well and in reality they are more entitled to air time as they always take more votes than 'the Tusc'. I won't hold my breath waiting for a sensible answer.[/p][/quote]As far as I am concern all partys should get equal amount but they don't, the Media is owned, Run and Controlled by the Right wing.any party that is center ground or to the Left will get little media coverage as possible It was the media that set down the rules of how many candidates are needed to get full media coverage and when that happens like TUSK have done this year they still refuse to give full media coverage. Like Question Time in Southampton, they would not let any TUSK reps on the panel they would not let them in as part of the audience to ask Questions.[/p][/quote]The producers of Question Time ask everyone to answer a simple questionnaire requiring seventeen answers so that they can supply a balanced audience. You have to accept that minority groups are never going to get on the panel, and having seen some rambling nut-jobs that get an opportunity to speak from the audience in the past, I can't begin to think what you put down on your application to get all of you refused entry. Is the reality that only one of you applied and because you didn't make it past the screening process then the usual paranoia took over and in the absence of Margaret Thatcher to blame, you decided that the whole of the media has somehow united to join forces against you? Torchie1
  • Score: 7

3:04pm Mon 12 May 14

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy? IronLady2010
  • Score: 1

3:24pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor. Torchie1
  • Score: 2

3:48pm Mon 12 May 14

Dan Soton says...

Green Party’s key objectives.. improving the city’s air quality – an issue highlighted recently by the World Health Organisation –


Sorry Greens you nearly persuaded me, thanks for all the Environmental Politicking but your days are numbered.. just an another victim of technology ..

In a few years from now I hope to have a phone with an Air Pollution App that will tell me if Southampton's traffic pollution is exceeding EU legal limits, if so it will automatically fine all the responsible parties...

Read on.. The EU is backing ( Doable Project) low cost continuous pollution monitoring via mobile phones..



YOU AND I WILL MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT

By Åse Dragland
24 Feb 2014

"AT PRESENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE USING EXPENSIVE STATIONS SPREAD AROUND THE COUNTRY. HOWEVER, NOW THAT EVERYBODY HAS A MOBILE PHONE, AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, WE OURSELVES CAN CONTRIBUTE WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF DATA," SAYS ARNE BERRE AT SINTEF ICT.

"More and better information is particularly valuable on days of high pollution or high pollen counts. Making their own measurements will get the general public involved in their own environment. Everybody can now receive useful feedback about the conditions around us.

"TECHNOLOGY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY WAY OF THE EU PROJECTS CITI-SENSE AND CITI-SENSE-MOB. THESE WILL ENABLE ORDINARY PEOPLE TO COLLECT ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. Research scientists from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and SINTEF are already well under way with the Norwegian contribution."

http://www.sintef.no
/home/Press-Room/Res
earch-News/You-and-I
-will-monitor-the-en
vironment/



Here's a prediction.. within the next decade a 12 year old is going to design an iphone app that can run this country better than any Political Party



,,
Green Party’s key objectives.. improving the city’s air quality – an issue highlighted recently by the World Health Organisation – Sorry Greens you nearly persuaded me, thanks for all the Environmental Politicking but your days are numbered.. just an another victim of technology .. In a few years from now I hope to have a phone with an Air Pollution App that will tell me if Southampton's traffic pollution is exceeding EU legal limits, if so it will automatically fine all the responsible parties... Read on.. The EU is backing ( Doable Project) low cost continuous pollution monitoring via mobile phones.. YOU AND I WILL MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT By Åse Dragland 24 Feb 2014 "AT PRESENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE USING EXPENSIVE STATIONS SPREAD AROUND THE COUNTRY. HOWEVER, NOW THAT EVERYBODY HAS A MOBILE PHONE, AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, WE OURSELVES CAN CONTRIBUTE WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF DATA," SAYS ARNE BERRE AT SINTEF ICT. "More and better information is particularly valuable on days of high pollution or high pollen counts. Making their own measurements will get the general public involved in their own environment. Everybody can now receive useful feedback about the conditions around us. "TECHNOLOGY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY WAY OF THE EU PROJECTS CITI-SENSE AND CITI-SENSE-MOB. THESE WILL ENABLE ORDINARY PEOPLE TO COLLECT ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. Research scientists from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and SINTEF are already well under way with the Norwegian contribution." http://www.sintef.no /home/Press-Room/Res earch-News/You-and-I -will-monitor-the-en vironment/ Here's a prediction.. within the next decade a 12 year old is going to design an iphone app that can run this country better than any Political Party ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 2

3:59pm Mon 12 May 14

KSO16R says...

StevenGalton wrote:
Interesting Labour point to the £8 million they secured from the government for glass recycling - this is the same bid that promised to provide a FREE greenwaste collection service if it was successful.

Labour broke this promise and in charging for greenwaste collections Labour have now put at risk future government funding and decreased the recycling levels as some people now put greenwaste in the ordinary green bins rather than recycle it!

This is before you mention the increase in street uncleanliness as residents will now no longer sweep the verges or collect leaves from the highway if they have no way to dispose of them once collected...
What residents are you talking about . . .? Bit of a sweeping statement reference green waste. . pun intended. I compost my green waste. I think you are trying to put words in peoples mouths mr galton.
[quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: Interesting Labour point to the £8 million they secured from the government for glass recycling - this is the same bid that promised to provide a FREE greenwaste collection service if it was successful. Labour broke this promise and in charging for greenwaste collections Labour have now put at risk future government funding and decreased the recycling levels as some people now put greenwaste in the ordinary green bins rather than recycle it! This is before you mention the increase in street uncleanliness as residents will now no longer sweep the verges or collect leaves from the highway if they have no way to dispose of them once collected...[/p][/quote]What residents are you talking about . . .? Bit of a sweeping statement reference green waste. . pun intended. I compost my green waste. I think you are trying to put words in peoples mouths mr galton. KSO16R
  • Score: -3

4:41pm Mon 12 May 14

bigfella777 says...

10 Reasons not to vote Liebour
1.Evening parking charges
2.The pack of lies told by Richard Williams
3.The complete mismanagement of the city's transport system by Jacqui Rayment .
4.Constantly wasting our money on needless consultations
5.Cutback of litter picking turning the city into a rat infested dump
6.Cutting bus services, isolating the elderly
7.No clear intelligent strategy, just randomly hacking away at services without any forethought for the people it effects.
8. Failure to freeze council tax hitting the poorest hardest.
9.Axing of City Patrol and the out of hours noise service.
10.Increasing the size of their cabinet by 50% at the same time as axing front line jobs, 100 more to go by next year.

This isn't how a council who are supposed to spend our hard earned taxes in a professional appropriate manner should behave, it is a hypocrisy and they are running this city down.

Restore Royston Smith the peoples champion.
10 Reasons not to vote Liebour 1.Evening parking charges 2.The pack of lies told by Richard Williams 3.The complete mismanagement of the city's transport system by Jacqui Rayment . 4.Constantly wasting our money on needless consultations 5.Cutback of litter picking turning the city into a rat infested dump 6.Cutting bus services, isolating the elderly 7.No clear intelligent strategy, just randomly hacking away at services without any forethought for the people it effects. 8. Failure to freeze council tax hitting the poorest hardest. 9.Axing of City Patrol and the out of hours noise service. 10.Increasing the size of their cabinet by 50% at the same time as axing front line jobs, 100 more to go by next year. This isn't how a council who are supposed to spend our hard earned taxes in a professional appropriate manner should behave, it is a hypocrisy and they are running this city down. Restore Royston Smith the peoples champion. bigfella777
  • Score: 4

4:54pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation. southy
  • Score: -2

5:14pm Mon 12 May 14

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
http://www.tusc.org.
uk/16920/28-02-2014/
second-maltby-counci
llor-for-tusc
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc IronLady2010
  • Score: 1

5:15pm Mon 12 May 14

IronLady2010 says...

Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win.
Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win. IronLady2010
  • Score: 1

5:20pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

KSO16R wrote:
StevenGalton wrote:
Interesting Labour point to the £8 million they secured from the government for glass recycling - this is the same bid that promised to provide a FREE greenwaste collection service if it was successful.

Labour broke this promise and in charging for greenwaste collections Labour have now put at risk future government funding and decreased the recycling levels as some people now put greenwaste in the ordinary green bins rather than recycle it!

This is before you mention the increase in street uncleanliness as residents will now no longer sweep the verges or collect leaves from the highway if they have no way to dispose of them once collected...
What residents are you talking about . . .? Bit of a sweeping statement reference green waste. . pun intended. I compost my green waste. I think you are trying to put words in peoples mouths mr galton.
Trouble is they all break promise like I all ready pointed out.

Green party in Brighton and Bristol voted to make Governments with out putting up any alternative form agenda, they even took an OAP to court to get the old lady evicted from her home. before the election 2 years ago they promise to make no cuts and to fight the government over cuts.

UKIP also have Councillors and they promise not to make cuts but when it came to voting in the council all voted for cuts, no alternative policy was made.

Lib/Dems voted for cuts and no alternative was offered.

Tory's bought in Cuts and still voting in cuts and job loses they might argue over what is cut and that is all.

Labour well we know what was promise and said did any of it come about no, the only 2 Councillors who put up a fight Don and Keith was kick out and push out of the Labour Party.

So who have been to Councils meetings to put up an alternative budget option, well that is the Socialist Party and the TUSC the only 2 groups that have put up an alternative to cuts and job loses but have no one sitting the council so it is done under a time limit and a vote by councillors only no need to tell you what the result would be.

Any one can address the council on the chambers floors, but it would take a petition signed by 1000's of people from the city to do so, It seems to me its only been the SP and TUSC that have bothered to represent the people and there needs and not those that sit in the council.
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevenGalton[/bold] wrote: Interesting Labour point to the £8 million they secured from the government for glass recycling - this is the same bid that promised to provide a FREE greenwaste collection service if it was successful. Labour broke this promise and in charging for greenwaste collections Labour have now put at risk future government funding and decreased the recycling levels as some people now put greenwaste in the ordinary green bins rather than recycle it! This is before you mention the increase in street uncleanliness as residents will now no longer sweep the verges or collect leaves from the highway if they have no way to dispose of them once collected...[/p][/quote]What residents are you talking about . . .? Bit of a sweeping statement reference green waste. . pun intended. I compost my green waste. I think you are trying to put words in peoples mouths mr galton.[/p][/quote]Trouble is they all break promise like I all ready pointed out. Green party in Brighton and Bristol voted to make Governments with out putting up any alternative form agenda, they even took an OAP to court to get the old lady evicted from her home. before the election 2 years ago they promise to make no cuts and to fight the government over cuts. UKIP also have Councillors and they promise not to make cuts but when it came to voting in the council all voted for cuts, no alternative policy was made. Lib/Dems voted for cuts and no alternative was offered. Tory's bought in Cuts and still voting in cuts and job loses they might argue over what is cut and that is all. Labour well we know what was promise and said did any of it come about no, the only 2 Councillors who put up a fight Don and Keith was kick out and push out of the Labour Party. So who have been to Councils meetings to put up an alternative budget option, well that is the Socialist Party and the TUSC the only 2 groups that have put up an alternative to cuts and job loses but have no one sitting the council so it is done under a time limit and a vote by councillors only no need to tell you what the result would be. Any one can address the council on the chambers floors, but it would take a petition signed by 1000's of people from the city to do so, It seems to me its only been the SP and TUSC that have bothered to represent the people and there needs and not those that sit in the council. southy
  • Score: -1

5:28pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli
tics.wordpress.com/2
014/03/28/maltby-tow
n-council-by-electio
n-results/

The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 014/03/28/maltby-tow n-council-by-electio n-results/ The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up? Torchie1
  • Score: 3

5:30pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win.
IronLady to be able to take part in a local election first of all you got to be nominated and second, then you have to get 10 people with in the ward that are registered to vote to sign agreeing for you to stand in an election.

This is the results in that ward for the 10 signatures.
UKIP 0
Greens 2
Torys 1
Labour 3
Lib/dems 2
Independent 1
TUSK 10
It was only TUSK that got pass the first hurdle of collecting the 10 signatures. But we are talking about a working class area
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win.[/p][/quote]IronLady to be able to take part in a local election first of all you got to be nominated and second, then you have to get 10 people with in the ward that are registered to vote to sign agreeing for you to stand in an election. This is the results in that ward for the 10 signatures. UKIP 0 Greens 2 Torys 1 Labour 3 Lib/dems 2 Independent 1 TUSK 10 It was only TUSK that got pass the first hurdle of collecting the 10 signatures. But we are talking about a working class area southy
  • Score: -2

5:36pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli

tics.wordpress.com/2

014/03/28/maltby-tow

n-council-by-electio

n-results/

The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?
Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 014/03/28/maltby-tow n-council-by-electio n-results/ The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?[/p][/quote]Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council southy
  • Score: -2

5:39pm Mon 12 May 14

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win.
IronLady to be able to take part in a local election first of all you got to be nominated and second, then you have to get 10 people with in the ward that are registered to vote to sign agreeing for you to stand in an election.

This is the results in that ward for the 10 signatures.
UKIP 0
Greens 2
Torys 1
Labour 3
Lib/dems 2
Independent 1
TUSK 10
It was only TUSK that got pass the first hurdle of collecting the 10 signatures. But we are talking about a working class area
Southy, no-one wanted to contest this that's why no-one made any effort. The local dog could have contested and gained more votes than TUSC if they wanted.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win.[/p][/quote]IronLady to be able to take part in a local election first of all you got to be nominated and second, then you have to get 10 people with in the ward that are registered to vote to sign agreeing for you to stand in an election. This is the results in that ward for the 10 signatures. UKIP 0 Greens 2 Torys 1 Labour 3 Lib/dems 2 Independent 1 TUSK 10 It was only TUSK that got pass the first hurdle of collecting the 10 signatures. But we are talking about a working class area[/p][/quote]Southy, no-one wanted to contest this that's why no-one made any effort. The local dog could have contested and gained more votes than TUSC if they wanted. IronLady2010
  • Score: 2

5:44pm Mon 12 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Oh yes, Maltby Town Council, which has the status and powers of a Parish Council - in fact it IS a Parish Council.

Yes, your man won against an Independent in a by-election, but: -

Investigations reveal that at the previous Local Elections only Labour and Independents put up candidates. There are 5 councillors elected in each of the 3 wards. Result was Labour 12, Independent 3.

The by-election was caused by the resignation of an Independent and Labour took a decision not to stand against a good Independent. It wasn't that they couldn't get 10 nominations. The opportunistic TUSC candidate won, in effect, by default in a left-wing community.

So, we have one rather sneaky by-election victory in a Parish Council.

And the other 2 you were mentioning? Come on, lets have it.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Oh yes, Maltby Town Council, which has the status and powers of a Parish Council - in fact it IS a Parish Council. Yes, your man won against an Independent in a by-election, but: - Investigations reveal that at the previous Local Elections only Labour and Independents put up candidates. There are 5 councillors elected in each of the 3 wards. Result was Labour 12, Independent 3. The by-election was caused by the resignation of an Independent and Labour took a decision not to stand against a good Independent. It wasn't that they couldn't get 10 nominations. The opportunistic TUSC candidate won, in effect, by default in a left-wing community. So, we have one rather sneaky by-election victory in a Parish Council. And the other 2 you were mentioning? Come on, lets have it. freefinker
  • Score: 4

5:57pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli


tics.wordpress.com/2


014/03/28/maltby-tow


n-council-by-electio


n-results/

The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?
Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council
The Returning Officer gave the results for the elections of two Parish Council positions. What is there to misunderstand? Barratt stood for election as a Parish Councillor for the East Ward of Maltby Town Council where he won because there was no competition. I know you like to claim to know everything but are you saying that you are a better source of information than the Returning Officer on the night?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 014/03/28/maltby-tow n-council-by-electio n-results/ The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?[/p][/quote]Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council[/p][/quote]The Returning Officer gave the results for the elections of two Parish Council positions. What is there to misunderstand? Barratt stood for election as a Parish Councillor for the East Ward of Maltby Town Council where he won because there was no competition. I know you like to claim to know everything but are you saying that you are a better source of information than the Returning Officer on the night? Torchie1
  • Score: 4

5:59pm Mon 12 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli


tics.wordpress.com/2


014/03/28/maltby-tow


n-council-by-electio


n-results/

The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?
Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council
.. yet again you are talking utter bow locks.
Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority).
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 014/03/28/maltby-tow n-council-by-electio n-results/ The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?[/p][/quote]Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council[/p][/quote].. yet again you are talking utter bow locks. Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority). freefinker
  • Score: 3

6:03pm Mon 12 May 14

IronLady2010 says...

Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.
uk/16920/28-02-2014/
second-maltby-counci
llor-for-tusc
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc IronLady2010
  • Score: -1

6:04pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win.
IronLady to be able to take part in a local election first of all you got to be nominated and second, then you have to get 10 people with in the ward that are registered to vote to sign agreeing for you to stand in an election.

This is the results in that ward for the 10 signatures.
UKIP 0
Greens 2
Torys 1
Labour 3
Lib/dems 2
Independent 1
TUSK 10
It was only TUSK that got pass the first hurdle of collecting the 10 signatures. But we are talking about a working class area
Southy, no-one wanted to contest this that's why no-one made any effort. The local dog could have contested and gained more votes than TUSC if they wanted.
That,s just it the moment they was knowing on doors to collect 10 signatures was the moment they wanted to contest it, theres no getting away with that fact, it was the people them self,s who refuse them from contesting the election.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win.[/p][/quote]IronLady to be able to take part in a local election first of all you got to be nominated and second, then you have to get 10 people with in the ward that are registered to vote to sign agreeing for you to stand in an election. This is the results in that ward for the 10 signatures. UKIP 0 Greens 2 Torys 1 Labour 3 Lib/dems 2 Independent 1 TUSK 10 It was only TUSK that got pass the first hurdle of collecting the 10 signatures. But we are talking about a working class area[/p][/quote]Southy, no-one wanted to contest this that's why no-one made any effort. The local dog could have contested and gained more votes than TUSC if they wanted.[/p][/quote]That,s just it the moment they was knowing on doors to collect 10 signatures was the moment they wanted to contest it, theres no getting away with that fact, it was the people them self,s who refuse them from contesting the election. southy
  • Score: -2

6:05pm Mon 12 May 14

freefinker says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win.
IronLady to be able to take part in a local election first of all you got to be nominated and second, then you have to get 10 people with in the ward that are registered to vote to sign agreeing for you to stand in an election.

This is the results in that ward for the 10 signatures.
UKIP 0
Greens 2
Torys 1
Labour 3
Lib/dems 2
Independent 1
TUSK 10
It was only TUSK that got pass the first hurdle of collecting the 10 signatures. But we are talking about a working class area
Southy, no-one wanted to contest this that's why no-one made any effort. The local dog could have contested and gained more votes than TUSC if they wanted.
.. southy, you have just made all that up.

If any political party (or independent) had been unable to get the required 10 nominations we would NOT know about it; because the nomination papers would NOT have been submitted to the local authority.

You really do know almost nothing about democracy and how our electoral system works. To be expected I suppose - if you ever did obtain power it would not be by elections, and democracy would be one of the first things to go.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Only Tusc put themselves forward, hardly a win.[/p][/quote]IronLady to be able to take part in a local election first of all you got to be nominated and second, then you have to get 10 people with in the ward that are registered to vote to sign agreeing for you to stand in an election. This is the results in that ward for the 10 signatures. UKIP 0 Greens 2 Torys 1 Labour 3 Lib/dems 2 Independent 1 TUSK 10 It was only TUSK that got pass the first hurdle of collecting the 10 signatures. But we are talking about a working class area[/p][/quote]Southy, no-one wanted to contest this that's why no-one made any effort. The local dog could have contested and gained more votes than TUSC if they wanted.[/p][/quote].. southy, you have just made all that up. If any political party (or independent) had been unable to get the required 10 nominations we would NOT know about it; because the nomination papers would NOT have been submitted to the local authority. You really do know almost nothing about democracy and how our electoral system works. To be expected I suppose - if you ever did obtain power it would not be by elections, and democracy would be one of the first things to go. freefinker
  • Score: 4

6:15pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli



tics.wordpress.com/2



014/03/28/maltby-tow



n-council-by-electio



n-results/

The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?
Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council
.. yet again you are talking utter bow locks.
Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority).
No that,s how it works, Southampton use to have its own council plus they had a councillors in Hampshire council and they are known as Parish Councillors, you had at one time 2 councillors from each ward that sat on Southampton council and you 1 councillor that sat on Hampshire Council. and is the reason why we still have 3 councillors from each ward even low we no longer take part in the County Council. 1 was a parish councillor
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 014/03/28/maltby-tow n-council-by-electio n-results/ The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?[/p][/quote]Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council[/p][/quote].. yet again you are talking utter bow locks. Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority).[/p][/quote]No that,s how it works, Southampton use to have its own council plus they had a councillors in Hampshire council and they are known as Parish Councillors, you had at one time 2 councillors from each ward that sat on Southampton council and you 1 councillor that sat on Hampshire Council. and is the reason why we still have 3 councillors from each ward even low we no longer take part in the County Council. 1 was a parish councillor southy
  • Score: -3

6:25pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.

uk/16920/28-02-2014/

second-maltby-counci

llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do southy
  • Score: -2

6:37pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.


uk/16920/28-02-2014/


second-maltby-counci


llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Are you going to give your version of your deselection as the Tusc candidate for Redbridge?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Are you going to give your version of your deselection as the Tusc candidate for Redbridge? Torchie1
  • Score: 2

6:46pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.


uk/16920/28-02-2014/


second-maltby-counci


llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on? Torchie1
  • Score: 2

7:14pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.



uk/16920/28-02-2014/



second-maltby-counci



llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?
Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?[/p][/quote]Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news. southy
  • Score: -3

7:24pm Mon 12 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli




tics.wordpress.com/2




014/03/28/maltby-tow




n-council-by-electio




n-results/

The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?
Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council
.. yet again you are talking utter bow locks.
Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority).
No that,s how it works, Southampton use to have its own council plus they had a councillors in Hampshire council and they are known as Parish Councillors, you had at one time 2 councillors from each ward that sat on Southampton council and you 1 councillor that sat on Hampshire Council. and is the reason why we still have 3 councillors from each ward even low we no longer take part in the County Council. 1 was a parish councillor
Total and utter rubbish.
Before Southampton became unitary the situation was that every ward had 3 city councillors and 1 county councillor. That's why there is now a blank year with no local elections in Southampton - that was the year of the county elections (and still is in the remainder of Hampshire).
NONE of them , city or county, were ever designated as parish councillors.
Your ignorance of the electoral system is outstanding.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 014/03/28/maltby-tow n-council-by-electio n-results/ The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?[/p][/quote]Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council[/p][/quote].. yet again you are talking utter bow locks. Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority).[/p][/quote]No that,s how it works, Southampton use to have its own council plus they had a councillors in Hampshire council and they are known as Parish Councillors, you had at one time 2 councillors from each ward that sat on Southampton council and you 1 councillor that sat on Hampshire Council. and is the reason why we still have 3 councillors from each ward even low we no longer take part in the County Council. 1 was a parish councillor[/p][/quote]Total and utter rubbish. Before Southampton became unitary the situation was that every ward had 3 city councillors and 1 county councillor. That's why there is now a blank year with no local elections in Southampton - that was the year of the county elections (and still is in the remainder of Hampshire). NONE of them , city or county, were ever designated as parish councillors. Your ignorance of the electoral system is outstanding. freefinker
  • Score: 3

7:29pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli





tics.wordpress.com/2





014/03/28/maltby-tow





n-council-by-electio





n-results/

The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?
Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council
.. yet again you are talking utter bow locks.
Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority).
No that,s how it works, Southampton use to have its own council plus they had a councillors in Hampshire council and they are known as Parish Councillors, you had at one time 2 councillors from each ward that sat on Southampton council and you 1 councillor that sat on Hampshire Council. and is the reason why we still have 3 councillors from each ward even low we no longer take part in the County Council. 1 was a parish councillor
Total and utter rubbish.
Before Southampton became unitary the situation was that every ward had 3 city councillors and 1 county councillor. That's why there is now a blank year with no local elections in Southampton - that was the year of the county elections (and still is in the remainder of Hampshire).
NONE of them , city or county, were ever designated as parish councillors.
Your ignorance of the electoral system is outstanding.
Your wrong Free the type of parish councils your thinking about went out with the arch the old church parish councils, These 2 councillors represents there wards in the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, don't try to play it down they are as important as city councillors
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 014/03/28/maltby-tow n-council-by-electio n-results/ The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?[/p][/quote]Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council[/p][/quote].. yet again you are talking utter bow locks. Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority).[/p][/quote]No that,s how it works, Southampton use to have its own council plus they had a councillors in Hampshire council and they are known as Parish Councillors, you had at one time 2 councillors from each ward that sat on Southampton council and you 1 councillor that sat on Hampshire Council. and is the reason why we still have 3 councillors from each ward even low we no longer take part in the County Council. 1 was a parish councillor[/p][/quote]Total and utter rubbish. Before Southampton became unitary the situation was that every ward had 3 city councillors and 1 county councillor. That's why there is now a blank year with no local elections in Southampton - that was the year of the county elections (and still is in the remainder of Hampshire). NONE of them , city or county, were ever designated as parish councillors. Your ignorance of the electoral system is outstanding.[/p][/quote]Your wrong Free the type of parish councils your thinking about went out with the arch the old church parish councils, These 2 councillors represents there wards in the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, don't try to play it down they are as important as city councillors southy
  • Score: -3

7:37pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.




uk/16920/28-02-2014/




second-maltby-counci




llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?
Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.
Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?[/p][/quote]Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out. Torchie1
  • Score: 4

7:57pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

small history lesson free.
Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire
small history lesson free. Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire southy
  • Score: -3

8:01pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.





uk/16920/28-02-2014/





second-maltby-counci





llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?
Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.
Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.
Then you are lieing or being lied to from people who have no connection to the TUSC, I know what is going out nothing even Paramjit Bahia did not know till last week, there was no de-selection
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?[/p][/quote]Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.[/p][/quote]Then you are lieing or being lied to from people who have no connection to the TUSC, I know what is going out nothing even Paramjit Bahia did not know till last week, there was no de-selection southy
  • Score: -2

8:01pm Mon 12 May 14

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
small history lesson free.
Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire
Sorry Southy, but you've been caught out again.

This time, TUSC candidate Shaun Barratt, a member of the USDAW shopworkers union, was the only person to hand in nomination papers by today's deadline, and was therefore elected unopposed, in a ward where previously Labour had held four out of the five seats. Other than a different version of the Con-Dem's austerity agenda, Labour has nothing to offer workers - this time, not even a candidate!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: small history lesson free. Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire[/p][/quote]Sorry Southy, but you've been caught out again. This time, TUSC candidate Shaun Barratt, a member of the USDAW shopworkers union, was the only person to hand in nomination papers by today's deadline, and was therefore elected unopposed, in a ward where previously Labour had held four out of the five seats. Other than a different version of the Con-Dem's austerity agenda, Labour has nothing to offer workers - this time, not even a candidate! IronLady2010
  • Score: 1

8:20pm Mon 12 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.






uk/16920/28-02-2014/






second-maltby-counci






llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?
Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.
Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.
Then you are lieing or being lied to from people who have no connection to the TUSC, I know what is going out nothing even Paramjit Bahia did not know till last week, there was no de-selection
When it comes to the facts I'm afraid you have a handicap from previous fantasy tales, like the time you tried to convince everyone that they'd have have pay tax on Tax Free ISAs........ Just to recall one at random. You and facts are total strangers, and by the way the version I was given came from one of your very own political group so I'm inclined to believe him.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?[/p][/quote]Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.[/p][/quote]Then you are lieing or being lied to from people who have no connection to the TUSC, I know what is going out nothing even Paramjit Bahia did not know till last week, there was no de-selection[/p][/quote]When it comes to the facts I'm afraid you have a handicap from previous fantasy tales, like the time you tried to convince everyone that they'd have have pay tax on Tax Free ISAs........ Just to recall one at random. You and facts are total strangers, and by the way the version I was given came from one of your very own political group so I'm inclined to believe him. Torchie1
  • Score: 3

8:34pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
small history lesson free.
Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire
Sorry Southy, but you've been caught out again.

This time, TUSC candidate Shaun Barratt, a member of the USDAW shopworkers union, was the only person to hand in nomination papers by today's deadline, and was therefore elected unopposed, in a ward where previously Labour had held four out of the five seats. Other than a different version of the Con-Dem's austerity agenda, Labour has nothing to offer workers - this time, not even a candidate!
They all entered the moment they went round knocking on doors for the ten signatures to be able to take part in an election, if you can not get 10 signatures from the ward that you intend to stand in then you can not take part in the final section where the people vote, read up on paragraph 14 (I think) it will explain to you what it takes to be able to stand in an election.

This is what it takes to stand in a local election.
First you get selected by the group/party that your in (unless you intend to stand as an independent then you don't have this worry).
Next you apply for nomination papers, there a whole lot that got to be fill in here, like who your agent, what group if any and who second you and the hard part Ten names from Residence with in that ward that you intend to stand in, and this means knocking on doors and asking if they will nominated you to stand in the local election, there is a time limit to get all this done 7 days I think. if you can't get those 10 names you have failed and this is what happen to all other party,s they failed to get the 10 names that is required all paper work must be returned by the set date and time weather if completed or not, this ward is was 100% labour strong hold and this as hurt Labour that the people turned there backs on them, the reason is like you say nothing to offer apart from austerity, it is a revolt against Labour and will be interesting to see what happens next year will that revolt carry on and grow bigger taking in other wards
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: small history lesson free. Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire[/p][/quote]Sorry Southy, but you've been caught out again. This time, TUSC candidate Shaun Barratt, a member of the USDAW shopworkers union, was the only person to hand in nomination papers by today's deadline, and was therefore elected unopposed, in a ward where previously Labour had held four out of the five seats. Other than a different version of the Con-Dem's austerity agenda, Labour has nothing to offer workers - this time, not even a candidate![/p][/quote]They all entered the moment they went round knocking on doors for the ten signatures to be able to take part in an election, if you can not get 10 signatures from the ward that you intend to stand in then you can not take part in the final section where the people vote, read up on paragraph 14 (I think) it will explain to you what it takes to be able to stand in an election. This is what it takes to stand in a local election. First you get selected by the group/party that your in (unless you intend to stand as an independent then you don't have this worry). Next you apply for nomination papers, there a whole lot that got to be fill in here, like who your agent, what group if any and who second you and the hard part Ten names from Residence with in that ward that you intend to stand in, and this means knocking on doors and asking if they will nominated you to stand in the local election, there is a time limit to get all this done 7 days I think. if you can't get those 10 names you have failed and this is what happen to all other party,s they failed to get the 10 names that is required all paper work must be returned by the set date and time weather if completed or not, this ward is was 100% labour strong hold and this as hurt Labour that the people turned there backs on them, the reason is like you say nothing to offer apart from austerity, it is a revolt against Labour and will be interesting to see what happens next year will that revolt carry on and grow bigger taking in other wards southy
  • Score: -5

8:35pm Mon 12 May 14

southy says...

Come on Torchie you was wrong and now you know it
Come on Torchie you was wrong and now you know it southy
  • Score: -2

9:12pm Mon 12 May 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

For a change Echo has printed a reasonably balanced article, although has missed out on what TUSC is offering to voters of Southampton.

While trying to observe objectively (Yes it is difficult for a socialist like me but not impossible) I can only say that the NuLabour's record in office is in fact even worse than that of the Cllr. Smith led Tories before them.

Right from the start under their disgraced Leader Williams and his Deputy Cllr. Rayment they opted to jump on a slippery slope, when they got caught telling fibs, started breaking promises made before the elections, and expelled two prominent councillors Don Thomas and Keith Morrell because both of them stood by the people who elected them, so kept on opposing unnecessary cuts.

Fact: 
Before last elections NuLabour promised not only to save services but also to improve.
In office they decreased services (in our ward, Coxford, tried to close Oaklands and other community facilities) and the quality has gone down.

Fact:
Before controlling Council the NuLabour said they will protect jobs.
But under NuLabour now there are fewer jobs than when the Council was run by the anti workers Tories.

Facts: Under NuLabour there are more traffic jams in Southampton and air quality has become a matter of serious concern, increased parking charges are hurting the residents of inner city and those living near General Hospital. They'd refused to listen to local ward councillors like Don Thomas and Keith Morrell who voted against that increase.

YES Cllr. Simon Letts is right that the current Con-Dem Coalition  national government has created even more financial hardships for the Council than the disgraceful NuLabour admin of Blair and Brown before it.

BUT NuLabour's Leader Cllr. Letts and his Thatcherised NuLabour colleagues, who have betrayed all the good Labour values, are also guilty of rolling over and accepting and implementing ruthless policies of the central govt.

FACT: When Councillors Don Thomas and Keith Morrell from Coxford proposed in the full Council meeting to campaign for proper financial package from the Central Govt, every NuLabour councillor opposed them and voted down the only correct solution to the serious problem of finance.

That is why I will be voting to re-elect Cllr. Keith Morrell.
For a change Echo has printed a reasonably balanced article, although has missed out on what TUSC is offering to voters of Southampton. While trying to observe objectively (Yes it is difficult for a socialist like me but not impossible) I can only say that the NuLabour's record in office is in fact even worse than that of the Cllr. Smith led Tories before them. Right from the start under their disgraced Leader Williams and his Deputy Cllr. Rayment they opted to jump on a slippery slope, when they got caught telling fibs, started breaking promises made before the elections, and expelled two prominent councillors Don Thomas and Keith Morrell because both of them stood by the people who elected them, so kept on opposing unnecessary cuts. Fact:  Before last elections NuLabour promised not only to save services but also to improve. In office they decreased services (in our ward, Coxford, tried to close Oaklands and other community facilities) and the quality has gone down. Fact: Before controlling Council the NuLabour said they will protect jobs. But under NuLabour now there are fewer jobs than when the Council was run by the anti workers Tories. Facts: Under NuLabour there are more traffic jams in Southampton and air quality has become a matter of serious concern, increased parking charges are hurting the residents of inner city and those living near General Hospital. They'd refused to listen to local ward councillors like Don Thomas and Keith Morrell who voted against that increase. YES Cllr. Simon Letts is right that the current Con-Dem Coalition  national government has created even more financial hardships for the Council than the disgraceful NuLabour admin of Blair and Brown before it. BUT NuLabour's Leader Cllr. Letts and his Thatcherised NuLabour colleagues, who have betrayed all the good Labour values, are also guilty of rolling over and accepting and implementing ruthless policies of the central govt. FACT: When Councillors Don Thomas and Keith Morrell from Coxford proposed in the full Council meeting to campaign for proper financial package from the Central Govt, every NuLabour councillor opposed them and voted down the only correct solution to the serious problem of finance. That is why I will be voting to re-elect Cllr. Keith Morrell. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Mon 12 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.
Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?
Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.
Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.
This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli






tics.wordpress.com/2






014/03/28/maltby-tow






n-council-by-electio






n-results/

The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?
Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council
.. yet again you are talking utter bow locks.
Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority).
No that,s how it works, Southampton use to have its own council plus they had a councillors in Hampshire council and they are known as Parish Councillors, you had at one time 2 councillors from each ward that sat on Southampton council and you 1 councillor that sat on Hampshire Council. and is the reason why we still have 3 councillors from each ward even low we no longer take part in the County Council. 1 was a parish councillor
Total and utter rubbish.
Before Southampton became unitary the situation was that every ward had 3 city councillors and 1 county councillor. That's why there is now a blank year with no local elections in Southampton - that was the year of the county elections (and still is in the remainder of Hampshire).
NONE of them , city or county, were ever designated as parish councillors.
Your ignorance of the electoral system is outstanding.
Your wrong Free the type of parish councils your thinking about went out with the arch the old church parish councils, These 2 councillors represents there wards in the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, don't try to play it down they are as important as city councillors
NO THEY ARE NOT.
Here's the full list of Rotherham councillors: -
http://www.rotherham
.gov.uk/councillors/
name
Now show me your 2 - you cant because they are only lowly Parish Councillors.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 014/03/28/maltby-tow n-council-by-electio n-results/ The use of the phrase 'Parish Councillor' does seem to suggest that the election was for the position of a Parish Councillor not a full Town Councillor. Either way 'the Tusc' came third out of three in Maltby South and elected unopposed in Maltby East. Has Maltby East shown 'the Tusc' that the way forward is to stand where there is no opposition to trip it up?[/p][/quote]Its like Totton they have there Town Council but they also have parish councillors to the Hampshire county council or like Southampton was a number of years ago and why we have 3 councillors in each ward, it had once City councillors and parish councillors the Hampshire council[/p][/quote].. yet again you are talking utter bow locks. Parish (and that includes Town) Councillors only sit on Parish councils and NOT on ANY other higher status councils (unless they have been SEPARATELY elected for that higher authority).[/p][/quote]No that,s how it works, Southampton use to have its own council plus they had a councillors in Hampshire council and they are known as Parish Councillors, you had at one time 2 councillors from each ward that sat on Southampton council and you 1 councillor that sat on Hampshire Council. and is the reason why we still have 3 councillors from each ward even low we no longer take part in the County Council. 1 was a parish councillor[/p][/quote]Total and utter rubbish. Before Southampton became unitary the situation was that every ward had 3 city councillors and 1 county councillor. That's why there is now a blank year with no local elections in Southampton - that was the year of the county elections (and still is in the remainder of Hampshire). NONE of them , city or county, were ever designated as parish councillors. Your ignorance of the electoral system is outstanding.[/p][/quote]Your wrong Free the type of parish councils your thinking about went out with the arch the old church parish councils, These 2 councillors represents there wards in the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, don't try to play it down they are as important as city councillors[/p][/quote]NO THEY ARE NOT. Here's the full list of Rotherham councillors: - http://www.rotherham .gov.uk/councillors/ name Now show me your 2 - you cant because they are only lowly Parish Councillors. freefinker
  • Score: 3

9:31pm Mon 12 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
small history lesson free.
Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire
irrelevant twaddle.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: small history lesson free. Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire[/p][/quote]irrelevant twaddle. freefinker
  • Score: 3

9:36pm Mon 12 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
small history lesson free.
Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire
Sorry Southy, but you've been caught out again.

This time, TUSC candidate Shaun Barratt, a member of the USDAW shopworkers union, was the only person to hand in nomination papers by today's deadline, and was therefore elected unopposed, in a ward where previously Labour had held four out of the five seats. Other than a different version of the Con-Dem's austerity agenda, Labour has nothing to offer workers - this time, not even a candidate!
They all entered the moment they went round knocking on doors for the ten signatures to be able to take part in an election, if you can not get 10 signatures from the ward that you intend to stand in then you can not take part in the final section where the people vote, read up on paragraph 14 (I think) it will explain to you what it takes to be able to stand in an election.

This is what it takes to stand in a local election.
First you get selected by the group/party that your in (unless you intend to stand as an independent then you don't have this worry).
Next you apply for nomination papers, there a whole lot that got to be fill in here, like who your agent, what group if any and who second you and the hard part Ten names from Residence with in that ward that you intend to stand in, and this means knocking on doors and asking if they will nominated you to stand in the local election, there is a time limit to get all this done 7 days I think. if you can't get those 10 names you have failed and this is what happen to all other party,s they failed to get the 10 names that is required all paper work must be returned by the set date and time weather if completed or not, this ward is was 100% labour strong hold and this as hurt Labour that the people turned there backs on them, the reason is like you say nothing to offer apart from austerity, it is a revolt against Labour and will be interesting to see what happens next year will that revolt carry on and grow bigger taking in other wards
Almost total and utter twaddle. All the other parties decided not to stand - full stop.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: small history lesson free. Redbridge ward before it became part of Southampton Town, This is with in my life time, Redbridge had parish councillor the Homes on the newly build estate was owned by Southampton Council but came under Romsey Town Council, we had 2 ward councillors for Romsey council and we had 2 parish councillors one to Southampton district council and one to Hampshire county council, later when the boundary,s moved and and Redbridge became part of Southampton, the one for Hampshire stayed and 1 Romsey councillor became part of Southampton the other was discontinued, giving us 2 wards town councillors and 1 parish councillor to hampshire[/p][/quote]Sorry Southy, but you've been caught out again. This time, TUSC candidate Shaun Barratt, a member of the USDAW shopworkers union, was the only person to hand in nomination papers by today's deadline, and was therefore elected unopposed, in a ward where previously Labour had held four out of the five seats. Other than a different version of the Con-Dem's austerity agenda, Labour has nothing to offer workers - this time, not even a candidate![/p][/quote]They all entered the moment they went round knocking on doors for the ten signatures to be able to take part in an election, if you can not get 10 signatures from the ward that you intend to stand in then you can not take part in the final section where the people vote, read up on paragraph 14 (I think) it will explain to you what it takes to be able to stand in an election. This is what it takes to stand in a local election. First you get selected by the group/party that your in (unless you intend to stand as an independent then you don't have this worry). Next you apply for nomination papers, there a whole lot that got to be fill in here, like who your agent, what group if any and who second you and the hard part Ten names from Residence with in that ward that you intend to stand in, and this means knocking on doors and asking if they will nominated you to stand in the local election, there is a time limit to get all this done 7 days I think. if you can't get those 10 names you have failed and this is what happen to all other party,s they failed to get the 10 names that is required all paper work must be returned by the set date and time weather if completed or not, this ward is was 100% labour strong hold and this as hurt Labour that the people turned there backs on them, the reason is like you say nothing to offer apart from austerity, it is a revolt against Labour and will be interesting to see what happens next year will that revolt carry on and grow bigger taking in other wards[/p][/quote]Almost total and utter twaddle. All the other parties decided not to stand - full stop. freefinker
  • Score: 3

12:27am Tue 13 May 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.





uk/16920/28-02-2014/





second-maltby-counci





llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?
Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.
Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.
Torchi 1, I don't know your source of info, but on the subject of why Peter is not candidate this year, to the best of my knowledge he is telling the truth.

As for various personal reasons, including health I haven't been around so was surprised on noticing Peter is no contesting from Red Bridge.

Having found the reason, I can only say I admire what he is doing, and only wish there were many others do the same, but sadly most of us lack admirable human values.

As far as elections performance is concerned, you and many others may not share his views, but unlike many at least he has been putting himself forward, providing people with different choice than three main identical parties and with hardly any resources has picked reasonable votes. Considering last time he got more votes than the partners of your favourite Tories in national government proves plenty of people putting their trust him through democratic process. I wonder how many of his critics on this site have ever put themselves for that king of democratic test?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?[/p][/quote]Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.[/p][/quote]Torchi 1, I don't know your source of info, but on the subject of why Peter is not candidate this year, to the best of my knowledge he is telling the truth. As for various personal reasons, including health I haven't been around so was surprised on noticing Peter is no contesting from Red Bridge. Having found the reason, I can only say I admire what he is doing, and only wish there were many others do the same, but sadly most of us lack admirable human values. As far as elections performance is concerned, you and many others may not share his views, but unlike many at least he has been putting himself forward, providing people with different choice than three main identical parties and with hardly any resources has picked reasonable votes. Considering last time he got more votes than the partners of your favourite Tories in national government proves plenty of people putting their trust him through democratic process. I wonder how many of his critics on this site have ever put themselves for that king of democratic test? Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 1

12:34am Tue 13 May 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

George4th wrote:
Can someone please tell me what a Labour Council has ever done for the City of Southampton?
Created even more traffic jams and charged higher tax for reduced services plus thrown even more workers out of their jobs!

You should be happy because most of what NuLabour has done were basically Tory policies
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Can someone please tell me what a Labour Council has ever done for the City of Southampton?[/p][/quote]Created even more traffic jams and charged higher tax for reduced services plus thrown even more workers out of their jobs! You should be happy because most of what NuLabour has done were basically Tory policies Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

12:44am Tue 13 May 14

Torchie1 says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.






uk/16920/28-02-2014/






second-maltby-counci






llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?
Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.
Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.
Torchi 1, I don't know your source of info, but on the subject of why Peter is not candidate this year, to the best of my knowledge he is telling the truth.

As for various personal reasons, including health I haven't been around so was surprised on noticing Peter is no contesting from Red Bridge.

Having found the reason, I can only say I admire what he is doing, and only wish there were many others do the same, but sadly most of us lack admirable human values.

As far as elections performance is concerned, you and many others may not share his views, but unlike many at least he has been putting himself forward, providing people with different choice than three main identical parties and with hardly any resources has picked reasonable votes. Considering last time he got more votes than the partners of your favourite Tories in national government proves plenty of people putting their trust him through democratic process. I wonder how many of his critics on this site have ever put themselves for that king of democratic test?
If you are referring to the election results of 2011 the Liberal polled more votes than the Tusc candidate and it's all duly recorded on behalf of the Returning Officer. As for the Liberals being partners in the National Government it's because Labour failed to persuade them to form a coalition with them or is that an inconvenient memory? Finally, uncovering an accurate account of Southy's replacement as the Redbridge candidate, I accept at face value what I was told by someone in the midst of the situation who couldn't gain anything from it, and I weigh that against another account from a source that will say literally anything to 'win' an argument.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?[/p][/quote]Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.[/p][/quote]Torchi 1, I don't know your source of info, but on the subject of why Peter is not candidate this year, to the best of my knowledge he is telling the truth. As for various personal reasons, including health I haven't been around so was surprised on noticing Peter is no contesting from Red Bridge. Having found the reason, I can only say I admire what he is doing, and only wish there were many others do the same, but sadly most of us lack admirable human values. As far as elections performance is concerned, you and many others may not share his views, but unlike many at least he has been putting himself forward, providing people with different choice than three main identical parties and with hardly any resources has picked reasonable votes. Considering last time he got more votes than the partners of your favourite Tories in national government proves plenty of people putting their trust him through democratic process. I wonder how many of his critics on this site have ever put themselves for that king of democratic test?[/p][/quote]If you are referring to the election results of 2011 the Liberal polled more votes than the Tusc candidate and it's all duly recorded on behalf of the Returning Officer. As for the Liberals being partners in the National Government it's because Labour failed to persuade them to form a coalition with them or is that an inconvenient memory? Finally, uncovering an accurate account of Southy's replacement as the Redbridge candidate, I accept at face value what I was told by someone in the midst of the situation who couldn't gain anything from it, and I weigh that against another account from a source that will say literally anything to 'win' an argument. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

12:55am Tue 13 May 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli




tics.wordpress.com/2
Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill.

In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill. In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

5:21am Tue 13 May 14

stay local says...

Come on Southy tell us, you were the unsuccessful candidate for the TUSC in Redbridge at the last election. Why have you not been selected this time around.

Why is the there no candidate from the TUSC in Redbridge ward, but a candidate from the unknown TUSAC. if you can actually manage to answer this can you tell us why you are now talking about a new party TUSK. The only details I can find about this is Donald Tusk who was a great supporter of the free market (something you are against).

Shock us and actually answer the questions!
Come on Southy tell us, you were the unsuccessful candidate for the TUSC in Redbridge at the last election. Why have you not been selected this time around. Why is the there no candidate from the TUSC in Redbridge ward, but a candidate from the unknown TUSAC. if you can actually manage to answer this can you tell us why you are now talking about a new party TUSK. The only details I can find about this is Donald Tusk who was a great supporter of the free market (something you are against). Shock us and actually answer the questions! stay local
  • Score: 1

6:23am Tue 13 May 14

aldermoorboy says...

Paramjit, first I wish you good health.

Tories are not anti workers they are pro workers.

The only way to improve all our standards of living is more efficiency.

Coxford result will be a four way battle, the result will be to close to call.
Paramjit, first I wish you good health. Tories are not anti workers they are pro workers. The only way to improve all our standards of living is more efficiency. Coxford result will be a four way battle, the result will be to close to call. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

9:19am Tue 13 May 14

freefinker says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli





tics.wordpress.com/2

Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill.

In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.Thank you Pamajit, that is precisely what I said at 7:24pm Mon 12.

Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

And his obvious nonsense about how many nominations all the other parties were able to obtain in Maltby.

How is it possible for someone with an obvious keen interest in politics to actually know so very little about the electoral processed and the tiered nature of local government?
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill. In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.[/p][/quote]Thank you Pamajit, that is precisely what I said at 7:24pm Mon 12. Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. And his obvious nonsense about how many nominations all the other parties were able to obtain in Maltby. How is it possible for someone with an obvious keen interest in politics to actually know so very little about the electoral processed and the tiered nature of local government? freefinker
  • Score: 2

9:20am Tue 13 May 14

freefinker says...

.. oops, I see the 'quote' facility is not working properly
.. oops, I see the 'quote' facility is not working properly freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:34am Tue 13 May 14

Torchie1 says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli





tics.wordpress.com/2

Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill.

In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.Another little 'error' made by someone who will forge on regardless of the truth in an attempt to prove he is right. At some point recently someone decided that the Party is more important than the individual, and the individual can't accept that either.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill. In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.[/p][/quote]Another little 'error' made by someone who will forge on regardless of the truth in an attempt to prove he is right. At some point recently someone decided that the Party is more important than the individual, and the individual can't accept that either. Torchie1
  • Score: 1

11:04am Tue 13 May 14

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli





tics.wordpress.com/2

Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill.

In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.Paramjit I am going back long before then, when Redbridge came under Romsey distract Council, when this estate was brand new, things change when the boundary line move to its present location, houses was owned by Southampton and collected the rents and the rates went to Romsey, It seems a long time ago now, but those days we had parish councillors, what your on about is after the boundary move when Redbridge came inside Southampton Limits and things was changed and it became like you said 3 councillors with one went to Hampshire and another change like you said in 1997.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill. In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.[/p][/quote]Paramjit I am going back long before then, when Redbridge came under Romsey distract Council, when this estate was brand new, things change when the boundary line move to its present location, houses was owned by Southampton and collected the rents and the rates went to Romsey, It seems a long time ago now, but those days we had parish councillors, what your on about is after the boundary move when Redbridge came inside Southampton Limits and things was changed and it became like you said 3 councillors with one went to Hampshire and another change like you said in 1997. southy
  • Score: 0

11:15am Tue 13 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli






tics.wordpress.com/2


Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill.

In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.Another little 'error' made by someone who will forge on regardless of the truth in an attempt to prove he is right. At some point recently someone decided that the Party is more important than the individual, and the individual can't accept that either.Now go back even earlier back to 1956 and into the early 60's, it was different to the late 60's to 1997 and how it is set up now, Many of you would not know as you might be to young to been around back then or you moved into the area.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill. In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.[/p][/quote]Another little 'error' made by someone who will forge on regardless of the truth in an attempt to prove he is right. At some point recently someone decided that the Party is more important than the individual, and the individual can't accept that either.[/p][/quote]Now go back even earlier back to 1956 and into the early 60's, it was different to the late 60's to 1997 and how it is set up now, Many of you would not know as you might be to young to been around back then or you moved into the area. southy
  • Score: 0

11:16am Tue 13 May 14

southy says...

As the site got problems
As the site got problems southy
  • Score: 0

11:55am Tue 13 May 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.







uk/16920/28-02-2014/







second-maltby-counci







llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?
Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.
Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.
Torchi 1, I don't know your source of info, but on the subject of why Peter is not candidate this year, to the best of my knowledge he is telling the truth.

As for various personal reasons, including health I haven't been around so was surprised on noticing Peter is no contesting from Red Bridge.

Having found the reason, I can only say I admire what he is doing, and only wish there were many others do the same, but sadly most of us lack admirable human values.

As far as elections performance is concerned, you and many others may not share his views, but unlike many at least he has been putting himself forward, providing people with different choice than three main identical parties and with hardly any resources has picked reasonable votes. Considering last time he got more votes than the partners of your favourite Tories in national government proves plenty of people putting their trust him through democratic process. I wonder how many of his critics on this site have ever put themselves for that king of democratic test?
If you are referring to the election results of 2011 the Liberal polled more votes than the Tusc candidate and it's all duly recorded on behalf of the Returning Officer. As for the Liberals being partners in the National Government it's because Labour failed to persuade them to form a coalition with them or is that an inconvenient memory? Finally, uncovering an accurate account of Southy's replacement as the Redbridge candidate, I accept at face value what I was told by someone in the midst of the situation who couldn't gain anything from it, and I weigh that against another account from a source that will say literally anything to 'win' an argument.
please try a year later 2012 in the Redbridge ward, Labour won the seat and it was a fight between Labour and TUSC to see who would get the Union members votes, the Unite and Unison area exe's got members to go round and talk to there Union Members to make sure they would vote Labour and not TUSC.

Tory,s came second though staunch voters people like Loose who never vote for any one else which good for him I don't knock it, it is his right.

TUSC came Third with me at the helm.

Lib/Dem came Fourth

2011 election it was Labour win, Tory's Second, Lib/Dem's Third, TUSC Fourth, Independent Fifth.

As for your source of information He could not gain any thing from it This Year but could in later on in years, Don't worry I know who been putting it about the false propaganda about de-selection, I had heard the propaganda a few weeks ago, I was hoping you would name him, He knows that TUSC can win this ward it is very winnable for TUSC, and 1 win would lead on to following wins taking out Labour strong hold over Redbridge.
If your wondering what I am up to with in the TUSC well sorry to say that,s on a need to know basis, but its not the reason why I not standing this year that is completely different, Will I be standing again well that even I can not tell you at the moment I might be or I may not, its a case of wait and see.
When you get propaganda against you, you know that they fear you for telling the truth and for being fair and just, for putting the ordinary people first even before one self.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?[/p][/quote]Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.[/p][/quote]Torchi 1, I don't know your source of info, but on the subject of why Peter is not candidate this year, to the best of my knowledge he is telling the truth. As for various personal reasons, including health I haven't been around so was surprised on noticing Peter is no contesting from Red Bridge. Having found the reason, I can only say I admire what he is doing, and only wish there were many others do the same, but sadly most of us lack admirable human values. As far as elections performance is concerned, you and many others may not share his views, but unlike many at least he has been putting himself forward, providing people with different choice than three main identical parties and with hardly any resources has picked reasonable votes. Considering last time he got more votes than the partners of your favourite Tories in national government proves plenty of people putting their trust him through democratic process. I wonder how many of his critics on this site have ever put themselves for that king of democratic test?[/p][/quote]If you are referring to the election results of 2011 the Liberal polled more votes than the Tusc candidate and it's all duly recorded on behalf of the Returning Officer. As for the Liberals being partners in the National Government it's because Labour failed to persuade them to form a coalition with them or is that an inconvenient memory? Finally, uncovering an accurate account of Southy's replacement as the Redbridge candidate, I accept at face value what I was told by someone in the midst of the situation who couldn't gain anything from it, and I weigh that against another account from a source that will say literally anything to 'win' an argument.[/p][/quote]please try a year later 2012 in the Redbridge ward, Labour won the seat and it was a fight between Labour and TUSC to see who would get the Union members votes, the Unite and Unison area exe's got members to go round and talk to there Union Members to make sure they would vote Labour and not TUSC. Tory,s came second though staunch voters people like Loose who never vote for any one else which good for him I don't knock it, it is his right. TUSC came Third with me at the helm. Lib/Dem came Fourth 2011 election it was Labour win, Tory's Second, Lib/Dem's Third, TUSC Fourth, Independent Fifth. As for your source of information He could not gain any thing from it This Year but could in later on in years, Don't worry I know who been putting it about the false propaganda about de-selection, I had heard the propaganda a few weeks ago, I was hoping you would name him, He knows that TUSC can win this ward it is very winnable for TUSC, and 1 win would lead on to following wins taking out Labour strong hold over Redbridge. If your wondering what I am up to with in the TUSC well sorry to say that,s on a need to know basis, but its not the reason why I not standing this year that is completely different, Will I be standing again well that even I can not tell you at the moment I might be or I may not, its a case of wait and see. When you get propaganda against you, you know that they fear you for telling the truth and for being fair and just, for putting the ordinary people first even before one self. southy
  • Score: 0

11:55am Tue 13 May 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
As the site got problems
Yes, may be because of you and your fans!!!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: As the site got problems[/p][/quote]Yes, may be because of you and your fans!!! Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

11:58am Tue 13 May 14

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
.. oops, I see the 'quote' facility is not working properly
Big problems, probably trying to make the site better but making it worse, that makes it sound like Mircosoft with there windows
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. oops, I see the 'quote' facility is not working properly[/p][/quote]Big problems, probably trying to make the site better but making it worse, that makes it sound like Mircosoft with there windows southy
  • Score: 0

11:59am Tue 13 May 14

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
As the site got problems
Yes, may be because of you and your fans!!!
Lol
Like the way you doing Redbridge " Red Bridge"
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: As the site got problems[/p][/quote]Yes, may be because of you and your fans!!![/p][/quote]Lol Like the way you doing Redbridge " Red Bridge" southy
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Tue 13 May 14

freefinker says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli





tics.wordpress.com/2

Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill.

In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore... well now the site seems to be working properly again with 'quote' I will re post: -

Thank you Pamajit, that is precisely what I said at 7:24pm Mon 12.

Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

And his obvious nonsense about how many nominations all the other parties were able to obtain in Maltby.

How is it possible for someone with an obvious keen interest in politics to actually know so very little about the electoral processed and the tiered nature of local government?
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill. In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.[/p][/quote].. well now the site seems to be working properly again with 'quote' I will re post: - Thank you Pamajit, that is precisely what I said at 7:24pm Mon 12. Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. And his obvious nonsense about how many nominations all the other parties were able to obtain in Maltby. How is it possible for someone with an obvious keen interest in politics to actually know so very little about the electoral processed and the tiered nature of local government? freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Tue 13 May 14

freefinker says...

.. oh dear, it's not working properly
.. oh dear, it's not working properly freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Tue 13 May 14

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :-

http://rotherhampoli






tics.wordpress.com/2


Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill.

In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore... well now the site seems to be working properly again with 'quote' I will re post: -

Thank you Pamajit, that is precisely what I said at 7:24pm Mon 12.

Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

And his obvious nonsense about how many nominations all the other parties were able to obtain in Maltby.

How is it possible for someone with an obvious keen interest in politics to actually know so very little about the electoral processed and the tiered nature of local government?They where voted into the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council by the people as parish councillors read what it says.
It not your old Parish Church Council Don't think any excise any more, plus Church parish councils are different from parish council. I gave you an example with Totton but I did make a error on what Council, Totton as a elected Town Council it also as Parish Councillors who are elected into office (this is where I made the error I said Hampshire Council when it should of been) New Forest District Council apart from the north of the Town there Parish Councillors go to Test Valley District council.
Its not nonsense at all what happen in those 2 wards where TUSC got the seats now and both are Councillors to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, all party,s did get nominations papers (or is that some thing you can't handle) these 2 wards are Labour strong holds and are contested by the main 3 all the time, and it will be remain to seen if TUSC have broken Labour hold in those wards it could be just a revolt against Labour the next time there an election in those wards will tell if they have been broken or not.
Maltby is a small town every one knows each other, bit like Redbridge Use to be in the early days of the Millbrook Housing Estate as most of the Family,s that moved out on this estate back in 1955 to 1962 came from back of the walls before the war, first to move here was those that got bomb out and had no where to live. then came the mass movement with the slum clear out, We all knew each other and when it came to voting time we all knew who would vote what way, we all knew what political party,s would do the rounds and when. it was a community back then not like it is now the community don't excise in Redbridge any more, Maltby is still a Community.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Free please stop you have been told in the pass remember the chat we had when TUSK won its first by-election you done your best to run it down but you could not get over the fact that the local people totally refuse all other party's, and the only other person to contest the by-election was a Labour party member who got the 10 signatures by posing as an Independent but still lost, well another ward in that same town was up for by-election, all the main stream party,s was there plus UKIP and the Greens and they could not even get 10 signatures between them to be able to take part in the last stage of an Election and that left TUSK to win the by-election uncontested.[/p][/quote]Am assuming you mean Maltby, Southy?[/p][/quote]Not the election held on March 27th 2014 where the Tusc candidate came last behind the Labour and the Independent candidate, which was listed as a Town Council but the position was for that of a Parish Councillor.[/p][/quote]Two election took place on the 27th, One was for the Town Council the other was for the parish council for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The Town Council Election was where mainly where the business are located, The Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Parish election was a housing estate where its mainly where family's live part of the old Coal mining workers accommodation.[/p][/quote]This is another instance where your refusal to quote a source is your undoing. If anyone wants to see if you are correct about the 'Parish or Town' election they could look at the Returning Officer Martin Kimber's posted results :- http://rotherhampoli tics.wordpress.com/2 Peter, that is not correct, in all 15 Southampton wards there used to be three city councillors and one County Councill. In 1997 that changed because Southampton and Portsmouth became a Unitary Authorities and not part of Hampshire anymore.[/p][/quote].. well now the site seems to be working properly again with 'quote' I will re post: - Thank you Pamajit, that is precisely what I said at 7:24pm Mon 12. Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. And his obvious nonsense about how many nominations all the other parties were able to obtain in Maltby. How is it possible for someone with an obvious keen interest in politics to actually know so very little about the electoral processed and the tiered nature of local government?[/p][/quote]They where voted into the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council by the people as parish councillors read what it says. It not your old Parish Church Council Don't think any excise any more, plus Church parish councils are different from parish council. I gave you an example with Totton but I did make a error on what Council, Totton as a elected Town Council it also as Parish Councillors who are elected into office (this is where I made the error I said Hampshire Council when it should of been) New Forest District Council apart from the north of the Town there Parish Councillors go to Test Valley District council. Its not nonsense at all what happen in those 2 wards where TUSC got the seats now and both are Councillors to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, all party,s did get nominations papers (or is that some thing you can't handle) these 2 wards are Labour strong holds and are contested by the main 3 all the time, and it will be remain to seen if TUSC have broken Labour hold in those wards it could be just a revolt against Labour the next time there an election in those wards will tell if they have been broken or not. Maltby is a small town every one knows each other, bit like Redbridge Use to be in the early days of the Millbrook Housing Estate as most of the Family,s that moved out on this estate back in 1955 to 1962 came from back of the walls before the war, first to move here was those that got bomb out and had no where to live. then came the mass movement with the slum clear out, We all knew each other and when it came to voting time we all knew who would vote what way, we all knew what political party,s would do the rounds and when. it was a community back then not like it is now the community don't excise in Redbridge any more, Maltby is still a Community. southy
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Tue 13 May 14

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death
freefinker wrote: Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death southy
  • Score: -1

2:09pm Tue 13 May 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard.
http://www.tusc.org.








uk/16920/28-02-2014/








second-maltby-counci








llor-for-tusc
Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do
Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?
Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.
Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.
Torchi 1, I don't know your source of info, but on the subject of why Peter is not candidate this year, to the best of my knowledge he is telling the truth.

As for various personal reasons, including health I haven't been around so was surprised on noticing Peter is no contesting from Red Bridge.

Having found the reason, I can only say I admire what he is doing, and only wish there were many others do the same, but sadly most of us lack admirable human values.

As far as elections performance is concerned, you and many others may not share his views, but unlike many at least he has been putting himself forward, providing people with different choice than three main identical parties and with hardly any resources has picked reasonable votes. Considering last time he got more votes than the partners of your favourite Tories in national government proves plenty of people putting their trust him through democratic process. I wonder how many of his critics on this site have ever put themselves for that king of democratic test?
If you are referring to the election results of 2011 the Liberal polled more votes than the Tusc candidate and it's all duly recorded on behalf of the Returning Officer. As for the Liberals being partners in the National Government it's because Labour failed to persuade them to form a coalition with them or is that an inconvenient memory? Finally, uncovering an accurate account of Southy's replacement as the Redbridge candidate, I accept at face value what I was told by someone in the midst of the situation who couldn't gain anything from it, and I weigh that against another account from a source that will say literally anything to 'win' an argument.
please try a year later 2012 in the Redbridge ward, Labour won the seat and it was a fight between Labour and TUSC to see who would get the Union members votes, the Unite and Unison area exe's got members to go round and talk to there Union Members to make sure they would vote Labour and not TUSC.

Tory,s came second though staunch voters people like Loose who never vote for any one else which good for him I don't knock it, it is his right.

TUSC came Third with me at the helm.

Lib/Dem came Fourth

2011 election it was Labour win, Tory's Second, Lib/Dem's Third, TUSC Fourth, Independent Fifth.

As for your source of information He could not gain any thing from it This Year but could in later on in years, Don't worry I know who been putting it about the false propaganda about de-selection, I had heard the propaganda a few weeks ago, I was hoping you would name him, He knows that TUSC can win this ward it is very winnable for TUSC, and 1 win would lead on to following wins taking out Labour strong hold over Redbridge.
If your wondering what I am up to with in the TUSC well sorry to say that,s on a need to know basis, but its not the reason why I not standing this year that is completely different, Will I be standing again well that even I can not tell you at the moment I might be or I may not, its a case of wait and see.
When you get propaganda against you, you know that they fear you for telling the truth and for being fair and just, for putting the ordinary people first even before one self.
Always someone else to blame! Why are you allowed to post stories about another political party and it's 'exposing the truth' and when someone writes something about you it's 'false propaganda because they fear your message'? I definitely know one person who will be monitoring your reply!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, watch the You-Tube video on this link. The young boy even says his voice won't be heard. http://www.tusc.org. uk/16920/28-02-2014/ second-maltby-counci llor-for-tusc[/p][/quote]Yes it will be hard for both of them that sit on Rotherham metropolitan borough council for Maltby, they are out numbered but they will have there say on the council chambers floor and they will put forward an alternative budget and how they vote will be notice by the local people, no different with Don and Keith in Southampton Council the rest of the council don't listen but the people will note what they say and do[/p][/quote]Isn't the biggest factor in your deselection the fact that people noted what you were saying and the party decided that you'd done too much damage to be allowed to carry on?[/p][/quote]Try again Torchie you are so far away the reason why, there was no de-selection I can a sure you of that, few people know the real reason why and what I am doing, mind you it took you a long time to find this out as the TUSC as known about the it for a very long time that would not be standing this year, Doing what I am doing is taking up a lot of my time and if I did stand and won the ward elections I would not be able commit the time it would require to be a councillor I would not be able to attend the 1 day a week to attend council meetings, Any way I stood in 2 elections and got the TUSC off the ground in this ward, first time round I was second best with in TUSC Southampton branch and came 4th out of 5, the second time i top the list with-in TUSC Southampton branch and came 3rd pushing the Lib/dems into 4th place, so how do you think the TUSC felt when they got told I would not be able stand in Local election this year, I can tell you this they was sadden by the news.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you that isn't the version that others are giving out.[/p][/quote]Torchi 1, I don't know your source of info, but on the subject of why Peter is not candidate this year, to the best of my knowledge he is telling the truth. As for various personal reasons, including health I haven't been around so was surprised on noticing Peter is no contesting from Red Bridge. Having found the reason, I can only say I admire what he is doing, and only wish there were many others do the same, but sadly most of us lack admirable human values. As far as elections performance is concerned, you and many others may not share his views, but unlike many at least he has been putting himself forward, providing people with different choice than three main identical parties and with hardly any resources has picked reasonable votes. Considering last time he got more votes than the partners of your favourite Tories in national government proves plenty of people putting their trust him through democratic process. I wonder how many of his critics on this site have ever put themselves for that king of democratic test?[/p][/quote]If you are referring to the election results of 2011 the Liberal polled more votes than the Tusc candidate and it's all duly recorded on behalf of the Returning Officer. As for the Liberals being partners in the National Government it's because Labour failed to persuade them to form a coalition with them or is that an inconvenient memory? Finally, uncovering an accurate account of Southy's replacement as the Redbridge candidate, I accept at face value what I was told by someone in the midst of the situation who couldn't gain anything from it, and I weigh that against another account from a source that will say literally anything to 'win' an argument.[/p][/quote]please try a year later 2012 in the Redbridge ward, Labour won the seat and it was a fight between Labour and TUSC to see who would get the Union members votes, the Unite and Unison area exe's got members to go round and talk to there Union Members to make sure they would vote Labour and not TUSC. Tory,s came second though staunch voters people like Loose who never vote for any one else which good for him I don't knock it, it is his right. TUSC came Third with me at the helm. Lib/Dem came Fourth 2011 election it was Labour win, Tory's Second, Lib/Dem's Third, TUSC Fourth, Independent Fifth. As for your source of information He could not gain any thing from it This Year but could in later on in years, Don't worry I know who been putting it about the false propaganda about de-selection, I had heard the propaganda a few weeks ago, I was hoping you would name him, He knows that TUSC can win this ward it is very winnable for TUSC, and 1 win would lead on to following wins taking out Labour strong hold over Redbridge. If your wondering what I am up to with in the TUSC well sorry to say that,s on a need to know basis, but its not the reason why I not standing this year that is completely different, Will I be standing again well that even I can not tell you at the moment I might be or I may not, its a case of wait and see. When you get propaganda against you, you know that they fear you for telling the truth and for being fair and just, for putting the ordinary people first even before one self.[/p][/quote]Always someone else to blame! Why are you allowed to post stories about another political party and it's 'exposing the truth' and when someone writes something about you it's 'false propaganda because they fear your message'? I definitely know one person who will be monitoring your reply! Torchie1
  • Score: 1

4:40pm Tue 13 May 14

IronLady2010 says...

Southy, Can I ask you a genuine question?

Earlier on in the comments you refused to tell us who these 2 TUSC people were. I did a bit of research and found Maltby and posted it. Why couldn't you have just done that?

Let's pretend you were elected as an MP, would you do the same and just stand up with a big speach and say I can't tell you what it's about, you'll have to research it for yourself.

I really don't get you sometimes.
Southy, Can I ask you a genuine question? Earlier on in the comments you refused to tell us who these 2 TUSC people were. I did a bit of research and found Maltby and posted it. Why couldn't you have just done that? Let's pretend you were elected as an MP, would you do the same and just stand up with a big speach and say I can't tell you what it's about, you'll have to research it for yourself. I really don't get you sometimes. IronLady2010
  • Score: 1

6:14pm Tue 13 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death
No, no, no, no, no, and no.

They are parish councillors on Maltby Town Council. And only that.

Here's the link, again, to ALL the councillors on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Your two fellow travellers are not there, are they?

http://www.rotherham
.gov.uk/councillors/
name

That you fail to understand the tiered structure of local government is no surprise. That you keep insisting there two parish councillors actually are representatives on a much higher authority when I have provided you with documentary proof that they are not, is a little mystifying - you usually disappear when conclusively proved wrong.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: freefinker wrote: Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death[/p][/quote]No, no, no, no, no, and no. They are parish councillors on Maltby Town Council. And only that. Here's the link, again, to ALL the councillors on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Your two fellow travellers are not there, are they? http://www.rotherham .gov.uk/councillors/ name That you fail to understand the tiered structure of local government is no surprise. That you keep insisting there two parish councillors actually are representatives on a much higher authority when I have provided you with documentary proof that they are not, is a little mystifying - you usually disappear when conclusively proved wrong. freefinker
  • Score: 1

6:22pm Tue 13 May 14

freefinker says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death
No, no, no, no, no, and no.

They are parish councillors on Maltby Town Council. And only that.

Here's the link, again, to ALL the councillors on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Your two fellow travellers are not there, are they?

http://www.rotherham

.gov.uk/councillors/

name

That you fail to understand the tiered structure of local government is no surprise. That you keep insisting there two parish councillors actually are representatives on a much higher authority when I have provided you with documentary proof that they are not, is a little mystifying - you usually disappear when conclusively proved wrong.
Oh, and if you look carefully at the list of Rotherham councillors you will see that all 3 that represent Maltby are 'Labour'
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: freefinker wrote: Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death[/p][/quote]No, no, no, no, no, and no. They are parish councillors on Maltby Town Council. And only that. Here's the link, again, to ALL the councillors on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Your two fellow travellers are not there, are they? http://www.rotherham .gov.uk/councillors/ name That you fail to understand the tiered structure of local government is no surprise. That you keep insisting there two parish councillors actually are representatives on a much higher authority when I have provided you with documentary proof that they are not, is a little mystifying - you usually disappear when conclusively proved wrong.[/p][/quote]Oh, and if you look carefully at the list of Rotherham councillors you will see that all 3 that represent Maltby are 'Labour' freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:32am Wed 14 May 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Green Party’s key objectives.. improving the city’s air quality – an issue highlighted recently by the World Health Organisation –


Sorry Greens you nearly persuaded me, thanks for all the Environmental Politicking but your days are numbered.. just an another victim of technology ..

In a few years from now I hope to have a phone with an Air Pollution App that will tell me if Southampton's traffic pollution is exceeding EU legal limits, if so it will automatically fine all the responsible parties...

Read on.. The EU is backing ( Doable Project) low cost continuous pollution monitoring via mobile phones..



YOU AND I WILL MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT

By Åse Dragland
24 Feb 2014

"AT PRESENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE USING EXPENSIVE STATIONS SPREAD AROUND THE COUNTRY. HOWEVER, NOW THAT EVERYBODY HAS A MOBILE PHONE, AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, WE OURSELVES CAN CONTRIBUTE WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF DATA," SAYS ARNE BERRE AT SINTEF ICT.

"More and better information is particularly valuable on days of high pollution or high pollen counts. Making their own measurements will get the general public involved in their own environment. Everybody can now receive useful feedback about the conditions around us.

"TECHNOLOGY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY WAY OF THE EU PROJECTS CITI-SENSE AND CITI-SENSE-MOB. THESE WILL ENABLE ORDINARY PEOPLE TO COLLECT ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. Research scientists from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and SINTEF are already well under way with the Norwegian contribution."

http://www.sintef.no

/home/Press-Room/Res

earch-News/You-and-I

-will-monitor-the-en

vironment/



Here's a prediction.. within the next decade a 12 year old is going to design an iphone app that can run this country better than any Political Party



,,
,,

Liberals and Labour bringing the rental market under control.. for WHO?


Will it help the thousands of under 30s in Southampton still living at home with their parents?

I'm sure there are some here who left school (40 yrs ago) at the age of 15/16 yrs got a job and a cheap bedsit.. now wondering if their grown up kids are ever going to get a life...

Labour building new council houses.. oh good, I hope they see to it that the hard working chippies, brickies plasters and labours are paid over a £1,000 a week to build them.. nothing worse than a Labour Council/Government robbing Peter to pay Paul..




,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Green Party’s key objectives.. improving the city’s air quality – an issue highlighted recently by the World Health Organisation – Sorry Greens you nearly persuaded me, thanks for all the Environmental Politicking but your days are numbered.. just an another victim of technology .. In a few years from now I hope to have a phone with an Air Pollution App that will tell me if Southampton's traffic pollution is exceeding EU legal limits, if so it will automatically fine all the responsible parties... Read on.. The EU is backing ( Doable Project) low cost continuous pollution monitoring via mobile phones.. YOU AND I WILL MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT By Åse Dragland 24 Feb 2014 "AT PRESENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE USING EXPENSIVE STATIONS SPREAD AROUND THE COUNTRY. HOWEVER, NOW THAT EVERYBODY HAS A MOBILE PHONE, AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, WE OURSELVES CAN CONTRIBUTE WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF DATA," SAYS ARNE BERRE AT SINTEF ICT. "More and better information is particularly valuable on days of high pollution or high pollen counts. Making their own measurements will get the general public involved in their own environment. Everybody can now receive useful feedback about the conditions around us. "TECHNOLOGY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY WAY OF THE EU PROJECTS CITI-SENSE AND CITI-SENSE-MOB. THESE WILL ENABLE ORDINARY PEOPLE TO COLLECT ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. Research scientists from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and SINTEF are already well under way with the Norwegian contribution." http://www.sintef.no /home/Press-Room/Res earch-News/You-and-I -will-monitor-the-en vironment/ Here's a prediction.. within the next decade a 12 year old is going to design an iphone app that can run this country better than any Political Party ,,[/p][/quote],, Liberals and Labour bringing the rental market under control.. for WHO? Will it help the thousands of under 30s in Southampton still living at home with their parents? I'm sure there are some here who left school (40 yrs ago) at the age of 15/16 yrs got a job and a cheap bedsit.. now wondering if their grown up kids are ever going to get a life... Labour building new council houses.. oh good, I hope they see to it that the hard working chippies, brickies plasters and labours are paid over a £1,000 a week to build them.. nothing worse than a Labour Council/Government robbing Peter to pay Paul.. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 1

11:38am Wed 14 May 14

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death
No, no, no, no, no, and no.

They are parish councillors on Maltby Town Council. And only that.

Here's the link, again, to ALL the councillors on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Your two fellow travellers are not there, are they?

http://www.rotherham


.gov.uk/councillors/


name

That you fail to understand the tiered structure of local government is no surprise. That you keep insisting there two parish councillors actually are representatives on a much higher authority when I have provided you with documentary proof that they are not, is a little mystifying - you usually disappear when conclusively proved wrong.
Oh, and if you look carefully at the list of Rotherham councillors you will see that all 3 that represent Maltby are 'Labour'
Try looking for the up date and not dated from the last election free.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: freefinker wrote: Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death[/p][/quote]No, no, no, no, no, and no. They are parish councillors on Maltby Town Council. And only that. Here's the link, again, to ALL the councillors on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Your two fellow travellers are not there, are they? http://www.rotherham .gov.uk/councillors/ name That you fail to understand the tiered structure of local government is no surprise. That you keep insisting there two parish councillors actually are representatives on a much higher authority when I have provided you with documentary proof that they are not, is a little mystifying - you usually disappear when conclusively proved wrong.[/p][/quote]Oh, and if you look carefully at the list of Rotherham councillors you will see that all 3 that represent Maltby are 'Labour'[/p][/quote]Try looking for the up date and not dated from the last election free. southy
  • Score: -1

12:24pm Wed 14 May 14

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy, Can I ask you a genuine question?

Earlier on in the comments you refused to tell us who these 2 TUSC people were. I did a bit of research and found Maltby and posted it. Why couldn't you have just done that?

Let's pretend you were elected as an MP, would you do the same and just stand up with a big speach and say I can't tell you what it's about, you'll have to research it for yourself.

I really don't get you sometimes.
Well good for you, you have started to think for your self for a change and not rely on others to provide for you, this what I been trying to do get people to do there own research, I give pointers in a direction to look the rest is up to you.
Who knows what else you might discover on your way in researching, try to remember that there is more than one option and its up to you decide what is what. Also when some one posts a link they are trying to get you to think in one direction only and not other direction where the real truth lays, and that is why I try to refrain from putting up links, i want you to look at as many possible directions you can.
That,s the problem with Politics now days, the powers to be have got the people thinking in one directions and making them think there is no other way, which is wrong because there are loads of ways.and keep people thinking in one direction is what is destroying this country and the rest of the world.
MP well as long its a back bencher, that way I could stand up and say when things are wrong even if the party I belong to was in-control of Government, but being in government it would be a lot different you have a small team of civil servants that could do a lot of the work for you, prepare, find out the inns and out of things that is there job to do these things for a MP, also realise this to as an MP you are acting for the people you represent and if they have a problem then it be up to me to bring it up on the Commons floor to find answers or get a change in the law but it would be an act for the Majority and not for the few,
That is one of the major problems in government they act for them selfs and for the few never for the majority those days ended in 1979.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Southy, Can I ask you a genuine question? Earlier on in the comments you refused to tell us who these 2 TUSC people were. I did a bit of research and found Maltby and posted it. Why couldn't you have just done that? Let's pretend you were elected as an MP, would you do the same and just stand up with a big speach and say I can't tell you what it's about, you'll have to research it for yourself. I really don't get you sometimes.[/p][/quote]Well good for you, you have started to think for your self for a change and not rely on others to provide for you, this what I been trying to do get people to do there own research, I give pointers in a direction to look the rest is up to you. Who knows what else you might discover on your way in researching, try to remember that there is more than one option and its up to you decide what is what. Also when some one posts a link they are trying to get you to think in one direction only and not other direction where the real truth lays, and that is why I try to refrain from putting up links, i want you to look at as many possible directions you can. That,s the problem with Politics now days, the powers to be have got the people thinking in one directions and making them think there is no other way, which is wrong because there are loads of ways.and keep people thinking in one direction is what is destroying this country and the rest of the world. MP well as long its a back bencher, that way I could stand up and say when things are wrong even if the party I belong to was in-control of Government, but being in government it would be a lot different you have a small team of civil servants that could do a lot of the work for you, prepare, find out the inns and out of things that is there job to do these things for a MP, also realise this to as an MP you are acting for the people you represent and if they have a problem then it be up to me to bring it up on the Commons floor to find answers or get a change in the law but it would be an act for the Majority and not for the few, That is one of the major problems in government they act for them selfs and for the few never for the majority those days ended in 1979. southy
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Wed 14 May 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Green Party’s key objectives.. improving the city’s air quality – an issue highlighted recently by the World Health Organisation –


Sorry Greens you nearly persuaded me, thanks for all the Environmental Politicking but your days are numbered.. just an another victim of technology ..

In a few years from now I hope to have a phone with an Air Pollution App that will tell me if Southampton's traffic pollution is exceeding EU legal limits, if so it will automatically fine all the responsible parties...

Read on.. The EU is backing ( Doable Project) low cost continuous pollution monitoring via mobile phones..



YOU AND I WILL MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT

By Åse Dragland
24 Feb 2014

"AT PRESENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE USING EXPENSIVE STATIONS SPREAD AROUND THE COUNTRY. HOWEVER, NOW THAT EVERYBODY HAS A MOBILE PHONE, AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, WE OURSELVES CAN CONTRIBUTE WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF DATA," SAYS ARNE BERRE AT SINTEF ICT.

"More and better information is particularly valuable on days of high pollution or high pollen counts. Making their own measurements will get the general public involved in their own environment. Everybody can now receive useful feedback about the conditions around us.

"TECHNOLOGY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY WAY OF THE EU PROJECTS CITI-SENSE AND CITI-SENSE-MOB. THESE WILL ENABLE ORDINARY PEOPLE TO COLLECT ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. Research scientists from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and SINTEF are already well under way with the Norwegian contribution."

http://www.sintef.no


/home/Press-Room/Res


earch-News/You-and-I


-will-monitor-the-en


vironment/



Here's a prediction.. within the next decade a 12 year old is going to design an iphone app that can run this country better than any Political Party



,,
,,

Liberals and Labour bringing the rental market under control.. for WHO?


Will it help the thousands of under 30s in Southampton still living at home with their parents?

I'm sure there are some here who left school (40 yrs ago) at the age of 15/16 yrs got a job and a cheap bedsit.. now wondering if their grown up kids are ever going to get a life...

Labour building new council houses.. oh good, I hope they see to it that the hard working chippies, brickies plasters and labours are paid over a £1,000 a week to build them.. nothing worse than a Labour Council/Government robbing Peter to pay Paul..




,,
,,

Who pays every time a Labour Council/Government calls for a New (low cost) Council House Building Programme ?



INSIGHT INTO THE MINDSET OF A FABIAN/LABOUR SUPPORTER AND POSSIBLY CLLR SIMON LETTS

House building at the ‘New State’s behest could have nothing but beneficial effects economically. However new housing is commissioned by the state it should be designed, by fair means or foul, to undercut the private market, stabilise and gradually reduce house prices and enable the much prized swing voters to be housed and have to spend less on housing.

Surely we can defeat the free marketers on housing ?

http://www.fabians.o
rg.uk/a-new-council-
house-building-progr
amme/


Not surprising.. from the 1940s to 2008 the UKs House Building Industry was notorious (unlike the rest of the world, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet ) for paying low wages..

-------


Here's why Cllr Simon Letts and a Labour Government will find it difficult to stand by their Council House pledges



BICKIES EARN £100K A YEAR BECAUSE OF "BRAWN DRAIN"

BY DESCRIER STAFF ON APRIL 7, 2014 UK

A shortage of skilled labourers has resulted in top bricklayers in the UK earning upwards of £100,000 per year, according to industry experts.

Recruitment firm Deverell Smith and building consultants EC Harris told The Times that an exodus of labourers from the construction industry following the 2008 financial collapse means that the industry is finding it near impossible to find enough bricklayers, joiners, and plasterers for the work now available as the economy recovers.

The industry has grown 125% since 2008 according, and with a decline in apprenticeships being offered by construction firms, the opportunities will need to be filled by immigrants from Eastern Europe.

http://descrier.co.u
k/news/uk/brickies-e
arn-100k-year-brawn-
drain/



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Green Party’s key objectives.. improving the city’s air quality – an issue highlighted recently by the World Health Organisation – Sorry Greens you nearly persuaded me, thanks for all the Environmental Politicking but your days are numbered.. just an another victim of technology .. In a few years from now I hope to have a phone with an Air Pollution App that will tell me if Southampton's traffic pollution is exceeding EU legal limits, if so it will automatically fine all the responsible parties... Read on.. The EU is backing ( Doable Project) low cost continuous pollution monitoring via mobile phones.. YOU AND I WILL MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT By Åse Dragland 24 Feb 2014 "AT PRESENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE USING EXPENSIVE STATIONS SPREAD AROUND THE COUNTRY. HOWEVER, NOW THAT EVERYBODY HAS A MOBILE PHONE, AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, WE OURSELVES CAN CONTRIBUTE WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF DATA," SAYS ARNE BERRE AT SINTEF ICT. "More and better information is particularly valuable on days of high pollution or high pollen counts. Making their own measurements will get the general public involved in their own environment. Everybody can now receive useful feedback about the conditions around us. "TECHNOLOGY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY WAY OF THE EU PROJECTS CITI-SENSE AND CITI-SENSE-MOB. THESE WILL ENABLE ORDINARY PEOPLE TO COLLECT ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. Research scientists from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) and SINTEF are already well under way with the Norwegian contribution." http://www.sintef.no /home/Press-Room/Res earch-News/You-and-I -will-monitor-the-en vironment/ Here's a prediction.. within the next decade a 12 year old is going to design an iphone app that can run this country better than any Political Party ,,[/p][/quote],, Liberals and Labour bringing the rental market under control.. for WHO? Will it help the thousands of under 30s in Southampton still living at home with their parents? I'm sure there are some here who left school (40 yrs ago) at the age of 15/16 yrs got a job and a cheap bedsit.. now wondering if their grown up kids are ever going to get a life... Labour building new council houses.. oh good, I hope they see to it that the hard working chippies, brickies plasters and labours are paid over a £1,000 a week to build them.. nothing worse than a Labour Council/Government robbing Peter to pay Paul.. ,,[/p][/quote],, Who pays every time a Labour Council/Government calls for a New (low cost) Council House Building Programme ? INSIGHT INTO THE MINDSET OF A FABIAN/LABOUR SUPPORTER AND POSSIBLY CLLR SIMON LETTS House building at the ‘New State’s behest could have nothing but beneficial effects economically. However new housing is commissioned by the state it should be designed, by fair means or foul, to undercut the private market, stabilise and gradually reduce house prices and enable the much prized swing voters to be housed and have to spend less on housing. Surely we can defeat the free marketers on housing ? http://www.fabians.o rg.uk/a-new-council- house-building-progr amme/ Not surprising.. from the 1940s to 2008 the UKs House Building Industry was notorious (unlike the rest of the world, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet ) for paying low wages.. ------- Here's why Cllr Simon Letts and a Labour Government will find it difficult to stand by their Council House pledges BICKIES EARN £100K A YEAR BECAUSE OF "BRAWN DRAIN" BY DESCRIER STAFF ON APRIL 7, 2014 UK A shortage of skilled labourers has resulted in top bricklayers in the UK earning upwards of £100,000 per year, according to industry experts. Recruitment firm Deverell Smith and building consultants EC Harris told The Times that an exodus of labourers from the construction industry following the 2008 financial collapse means that the industry is finding it near impossible to find enough bricklayers, joiners, and plasterers for the work now available as the economy recovers. The industry has grown 125% since 2008 according, and with a decline in apprenticeships being offered by construction firms, the opportunities will need to be filled by immigrants from Eastern Europe. http://descrier.co.u k/news/uk/brickies-e arn-100k-year-brawn- drain/ ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Wed 14 May 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death
No, no, no, no, no, and no.

They are parish councillors on Maltby Town Council. And only that.

Here's the link, again, to ALL the councillors on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Your two fellow travellers are not there, are they?

http://www.rotherham



.gov.uk/councillors/



name

That you fail to understand the tiered structure of local government is no surprise. That you keep insisting there two parish councillors actually are representatives on a much higher authority when I have provided you with documentary proof that they are not, is a little mystifying - you usually disappear when conclusively proved wrong.
Oh, and if you look carefully at the list of Rotherham councillors you will see that all 3 that represent Maltby are 'Labour'
Try looking for the up date and not dated from the last election free.
it is up to date, you fool
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: freefinker wrote: Now perhaps you would also like to correct southy as to the fact that Maltby Parish councillors DO NOT also automatically have seats on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Tell me what are they elected for if not elected for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, what would be the point of having an election it would be a waste of time and money, the fact is that what the elections was for. These 2 by-election came about because of vacant seats on the Rotherham Metropolitan District Borough Council, 1 was though ill health I believe the other I not to sure about it might of been because of retirement or death[/p][/quote]No, no, no, no, no, and no. They are parish councillors on Maltby Town Council. And only that. Here's the link, again, to ALL the councillors on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. Your two fellow travellers are not there, are they? http://www.rotherham .gov.uk/councillors/ name That you fail to understand the tiered structure of local government is no surprise. That you keep insisting there two parish councillors actually are representatives on a much higher authority when I have provided you with documentary proof that they are not, is a little mystifying - you usually disappear when conclusively proved wrong.[/p][/quote]Oh, and if you look carefully at the list of Rotherham councillors you will see that all 3 that represent Maltby are 'Labour'[/p][/quote]Try looking for the up date and not dated from the last election free.[/p][/quote]it is up to date, you fool freefinker
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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