Southampton City Council puts 200 jobs at risk as it faces plugging a £30m black hole

200 council jobs face axe in £30m black hole

200 council jobs face axe in £30m black hole

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

ALMOST 200 jobs could be axed in the latest round of multi-million pound council cuts, the Daily Echo can reveal.

Civic chiefs in Southampton are faced with plugging a £30.8m black hole for the next year alone and are proposing savage cuts including scrapping services for people with learning difficulties and even closing a care home.

Today council leaders have been accused of “betraying” city residents, having promised they would not axe jobs just two years ago before coming to power.

And there is likely to be even worse to come, with the cash-strapped council being forced to find a further £17million of cuts by November.

The Labour-run authority has had to make a series of swingeing cutbacks in recent years, with more than 300 jobs and more than £30million of services axed over the past two financial years.

Bosses say they have been hit by a series of crippling cuts to the grant they receive from Government, which have forced them to slash services and jobs.

Council bosses are having to find £30.8million of savings for 2015/16 alone – and opposition councillors are warning that the situation will become dire by April next year.

Labour chiefs have managed to plug £4.5million of the £30.8million budget gap through money allocated for the 2014/15 budget but not spent, and Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) funds put aside to use against bad debt but never utilized.

Now they have announced a series of proposals as part of a “mini-budget” that will wipe off a further £7.7m, which could be given the green light in September.

The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush, which offers care for people aged over 65 who suffer from dementia, which could lead to 29 job losses.

The city’s kennels could also be closed, while day services for people with learning difficulties could be axed with the loss of 59 jobs and the service offices in Kentish Road, Shirley, closed.

The council hopes major changes to the way highways improvements are funded will save £2million.

And while each council department currently has its own business support team which helps with human resources and personnel issues, they will be cut to a single team, saving £800,000 a year but costing 83 jobs.

In total 195 jobs are at risk, 47 of which are currently vacant.

Civic chiefs say they have brought forward the cut proposals so they can make £1.3million of savings in the current financial year, while their “mini-budget” proposals could save £8.4milion in 2016/17 and £8.5million in 2017/18.

But even after the “mini-budget” and underspend funding they are left with a £17.3m headache – and they need to find that money by November.

Council chiefs have refused to say where the axe could fall later in the year, although they did say that only children’s safeguarding is considered safe.

The giant black hole in the city’s finances are just a flavour of what is to come, with council leaders projecting they will be forced to make a staggering £46.2million of savings by 2016/17 and £66.5million by 2017/18.

If the budget is approved by the full council next Wednesday (July 16), consultation will begin before a final decision on the “mini-budget” is made in September.

The proposals for how the council will find the remaining £17.3.million will then be announced in November, and approved in February.

City council leader Simon Letts says the authority hopes to raise large parts of that by selling off council properties, such as Marlands House, which will be fully vacated later this year.

He said: “I think you should make some decisions as soon as you are legally able to, so rather than wait until February we are getting more than £1million in in-year savings that we won’t have to find next year.

“Southampton has been disproportionately hit in comparison to more affluent areas – over five years we have seen £148 cuts per head as opposed to £28 a head in Winchester.”

And council finances chief Stephen Barnes-Andrews added: “If the Government is going to carry on cutting our grant funding, we are going to have to carry on cutting services.”

Comments (235)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:01pm Mon 7 Jul 14

southamptonadi says...

And this was added tomorrow morning,
And this was added tomorrow morning, southamptonadi
  • Score: 4

9:58pm Mon 7 Jul 14

SotonGreen says...

Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.
Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it. SotonGreen
  • Score: 0

6:36am Tue 8 Jul 14

bigfella777 says...

Labour, no strategy, no ideas not a clue.
How about spending some of the millions you have put in the bank ?
Labour, no strategy, no ideas not a clue. How about spending some of the millions you have put in the bank ? bigfella777
  • Score: 20

6:48am Tue 8 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 25

6:49am Tue 8 Jul 14

loosehead says...

When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in. loosehead
  • Score: 30

6:59am Tue 8 Jul 14

sotonboy84 says...

You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere. sotonboy84
  • Score: 35

7:09am Tue 8 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

I would think that picking up the debt for the Sea Museum doesnt help either ........ another great Tory legacy
I would think that picking up the debt for the Sea Museum doesnt help either ........ another great Tory legacy Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 14

7:27am Tue 8 Jul 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 11

7:56am Tue 8 Jul 14

Miguel Raton says...

Axe all the non jobs and pay market rates for employees that are actually required and expenditure on front line services could actually be increased while making reductions in council tax.

Is anyone surprised that a council has more than 83 people in 'HR'?
Axe all the non jobs and pay market rates for employees that are actually required and expenditure on front line services could actually be increased while making reductions in council tax. Is anyone surprised that a council has more than 83 people in 'HR'? Miguel Raton
  • Score: 27

8:01am Tue 8 Jul 14

mintybee says...

Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x
Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x mintybee
  • Score: 32

8:06am Tue 8 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

mintybee wrote:
Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x
Sadly, because the high paid clerks (they call themselves "Director" of this and that but would certainly not be missed) control the purse strings they'll not prejudice their cushy lives and will try to hurt the greatest number of citizens to make a point. Perhaps there should be a plebiscite on what the Council should and shouldn't do.
[quote][p][bold]mintybee[/bold] wrote: Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x[/p][/quote]Sadly, because the high paid clerks (they call themselves "Director" of this and that but would certainly not be missed) control the purse strings they'll not prejudice their cushy lives and will try to hurt the greatest number of citizens to make a point. Perhaps there should be a plebiscite on what the Council should and shouldn't do. Dai Rear
  • Score: 22

8:19am Tue 8 Jul 14

SNUGGLES 78 says...

where does all the council tax go ? beyond a disgrace.
where does all the council tax go ? beyond a disgrace. SNUGGLES 78
  • Score: 17

8:26am Tue 8 Jul 14

mintybee says...

Dai Rear wrote:
mintybee wrote:
Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x
Sadly, because the high paid clerks (they call themselves "Director" of this and that but would certainly not be missed) control the purse strings they'll not prejudice their cushy lives and will try to hurt the greatest number of citizens to make a point. Perhaps there should be a plebiscite on what the Council should and shouldn't do.
Your right but it will never happen about getting regulated though it's all to high up I have really lost faith in the gov and council (saying that I lost it years ago ) I can see why so many now are leaving to go over seas to live xx
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mintybee[/bold] wrote: Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x[/p][/quote]Sadly, because the high paid clerks (they call themselves "Director" of this and that but would certainly not be missed) control the purse strings they'll not prejudice their cushy lives and will try to hurt the greatest number of citizens to make a point. Perhaps there should be a plebiscite on what the Council should and shouldn't do.[/p][/quote]Your right but it will never happen about getting regulated though it's all to high up I have really lost faith in the gov and council (saying that I lost it years ago ) I can see why so many now are leaving to go over seas to live xx mintybee
  • Score: 11

8:26am Tue 8 Jul 14

mintybee says...

Dai Rear wrote:
mintybee wrote:
Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x
Sadly, because the high paid clerks (they call themselves "Director" of this and that but would certainly not be missed) control the purse strings they'll not prejudice their cushy lives and will try to hurt the greatest number of citizens to make a point. Perhaps there should be a plebiscite on what the Council should and shouldn't do.
Your right but it will never happen about getting regulated though it's all to high up I have really lost faith in the gov and council (saying that I lost it years ago ) I can see why so many now are leaving to go over seas to live xx
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mintybee[/bold] wrote: Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x[/p][/quote]Sadly, because the high paid clerks (they call themselves "Director" of this and that but would certainly not be missed) control the purse strings they'll not prejudice their cushy lives and will try to hurt the greatest number of citizens to make a point. Perhaps there should be a plebiscite on what the Council should and shouldn't do.[/p][/quote]Your right but it will never happen about getting regulated though it's all to high up I have really lost faith in the gov and council (saying that I lost it years ago ) I can see why so many now are leaving to go over seas to live xx mintybee
  • Score: -2

8:52am Tue 8 Jul 14

townieboy says...

Have they sacked all the gardeners already ?? around my place its like a jungle with everything overgrown.......joke
.
Have they sacked all the gardeners already ?? around my place its like a jungle with everything overgrown.......joke . townieboy
  • Score: 16

8:54am Tue 8 Jul 14

saint61 says...

"The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush, which offers care for people aged over 65 who suffer from dementia, which could lead to 29 job losses"

NO MENTION OF THE PATIENTS IN THE CARE HOME. WILL THE COUNCIL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REHOUSING THEM.

MUST BE THINGS THE COUNCIL CAN CUT BACK ON BEFORE THESE OLD PEOPLE HAVE TO SUFFER.

ALL TALK IN THE NEWS OF DEMENTIA AND ALZEIHMER SUFFERS AND WHAT DO THE LABOUR COUNCIL DO? CLOSE THE HOME AND THROW THE OLD SUFFERERS PUT ON THE STREET........I HOPE THEY CAN ALL SLEEP AT NIGHT!
"The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush, which offers care for people aged over 65 who suffer from dementia, which could lead to 29 job losses" NO MENTION OF THE PATIENTS IN THE CARE HOME. WILL THE COUNCIL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REHOUSING THEM. MUST BE THINGS THE COUNCIL CAN CUT BACK ON BEFORE THESE OLD PEOPLE HAVE TO SUFFER. ALL TALK IN THE NEWS OF DEMENTIA AND ALZEIHMER SUFFERS AND WHAT DO THE LABOUR COUNCIL DO? CLOSE THE HOME AND THROW THE OLD SUFFERERS PUT ON THE STREET........I HOPE THEY CAN ALL SLEEP AT NIGHT! saint61
  • Score: 30

8:57am Tue 8 Jul 14

saint61 says...

The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush, which offers care for people aged over 65 who suffer from dementia, which could lead to 29 job losses.

NO MENTION OF THE OLD AGE PATIENTS WHO SUFFER FROM DEMENTIA. WILL THE COUNCIL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REHOUSING THEM?

SURELY THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THE LABOUR COUNCIL CAN CUT BEFORE THROWING OLD PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET.

I HOPE THE LABOUR COUNCILORS CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT.
The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush, which offers care for people aged over 65 who suffer from dementia, which could lead to 29 job losses. NO MENTION OF THE OLD AGE PATIENTS WHO SUFFER FROM DEMENTIA. WILL THE COUNCIL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REHOUSING THEM? SURELY THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THE LABOUR COUNCIL CAN CUT BEFORE THROWING OLD PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET. I HOPE THE LABOUR COUNCILORS CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT. saint61
  • Score: 5

9:16am Tue 8 Jul 14

Stapleman says...

Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses.
They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.
Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses. They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants. Stapleman
  • Score: 38

9:23am Tue 8 Jul 14

southy says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same. southy
  • Score: -4

9:27am Tue 8 Jul 14

Outside of the Box says...

Its about time the council start selling off land and building instead of asset transfer and regeneration.

The shortage of affordable housing is there, the shortage in council/RSL housing is there, sell the land and building off let the building begin.

I don't care if its a Labour or Tory council, building new homes is what is needed, over the last 15 years Southampton has had areas of regeneration which is fine but they were knocking down homes and re-building (getting an extra 20 homes) new ones, that hasn't solved the housing shortage, they must be 20 RSL's out waiting to build why haven't they been approached to buy up old council buildings or green space to create new homes and new jobs.
Its about time the council start selling off land and building instead of asset transfer and regeneration. The shortage of affordable housing is there, the shortage in council/RSL housing is there, sell the land and building off let the building begin. I don't care if its a Labour or Tory council, building new homes is what is needed, over the last 15 years Southampton has had areas of regeneration which is fine but they were knocking down homes and re-building (getting an extra 20 homes) new ones, that hasn't solved the housing shortage, they must be 20 RSL's out waiting to build why haven't they been approached to buy up old council buildings or green space to create new homes and new jobs. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 2

9:28am Tue 8 Jul 14

SilvanDryad says...

Miguel Raton wrote:
Axe all the non jobs and pay market rates for employees that are actually required and expenditure on front line services could actually be increased while making reductions in council tax. Is anyone surprised that a council has more than 83 people in 'HR'?
HR is actually provided by Capita, as well as IT. SCC Business Support employees provide support to staff regarding travel arrangments, stationery orders and arranging meetings, for example.
To be fair, you need quite a few staff in HR if you employ several thousand people. (Especially to organise the redundancies.)
[quote][p][bold]Miguel Raton[/bold] wrote: Axe all the non jobs and pay market rates for employees that are actually required and expenditure on front line services could actually be increased while making reductions in council tax. Is anyone surprised that a council has more than 83 people in 'HR'?[/p][/quote]HR is actually provided by Capita, as well as IT. SCC Business Support employees provide support to staff regarding travel arrangments, stationery orders and arranging meetings, for example. To be fair, you need quite a few staff in HR if you employ several thousand people. (Especially to organise the redundancies.) SilvanDryad
  • Score: 10

9:34am Tue 8 Jul 14

southy says...

townieboy wrote:
Have they sacked all the gardeners already ?? around my place its like a jungle with everything overgrown.......joke

.
Most have gone all ready, those few that are left have to do street cleaning also as well as do the gardening, they been cut back that much the system no longer works and this dept is being getting ready to be handed over to the private sector to run, which in the end will end up costing more, it will be enviable that the Council tax which is going to be replace soon with an area tax that the LEP will control and dictate on rates will be tripled
[quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote: Have they sacked all the gardeners already ?? around my place its like a jungle with everything overgrown.......joke .[/p][/quote]Most have gone all ready, those few that are left have to do street cleaning also as well as do the gardening, they been cut back that much the system no longer works and this dept is being getting ready to be handed over to the private sector to run, which in the end will end up costing more, it will be enviable that the Council tax which is going to be replace soon with an area tax that the LEP will control and dictate on rates will be tripled southy
  • Score: 5

9:44am Tue 8 Jul 14

southy says...

saint61 wrote:
The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush, which offers care for people aged over 65 who suffer from dementia, which could lead to 29 job losses.

NO MENTION OF THE OLD AGE PATIENTS WHO SUFFER FROM DEMENTIA. WILL THE COUNCIL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REHOUSING THEM?

SURELY THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THE LABOUR COUNCIL CAN CUT BEFORE THROWING OLD PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET.

I HOPE THE LABOUR COUNCILORS CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT.
The TUSC did warn people over this that it did not matter if it was a L:ib/dem or Tory or Labour council cuts was going to happen on a large scale, Just that with the Tory's it would of happen quicker where as Labour making the same amount of cuts would take a bit longer on it.
A promise from Simon Letts that they would take the fight to government never happen and nor will it, they will just implement the cuts but in there own way and the Tory's will do when they are told to do from government and head office.
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush, which offers care for people aged over 65 who suffer from dementia, which could lead to 29 job losses. NO MENTION OF THE OLD AGE PATIENTS WHO SUFFER FROM DEMENTIA. WILL THE COUNCIL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REHOUSING THEM? SURELY THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THE LABOUR COUNCIL CAN CUT BEFORE THROWING OLD PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET. I HOPE THE LABOUR COUNCILORS CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT.[/p][/quote]The TUSC did warn people over this that it did not matter if it was a L:ib/dem or Tory or Labour council cuts was going to happen on a large scale, Just that with the Tory's it would of happen quicker where as Labour making the same amount of cuts would take a bit longer on it. A promise from Simon Letts that they would take the fight to government never happen and nor will it, they will just implement the cuts but in there own way and the Tory's will do when they are told to do from government and head office. southy
  • Score: 0

10:05am Tue 8 Jul 14

House Sparrow says...

southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says. House Sparrow
  • Score: 15

10:11am Tue 8 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

Stapleman wrote:
Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses.
They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.
I pay Council Tax on my home. My tenant pays it on his home I rent to him. I would have thought you'd have figured that, or are you suggesting some form of double taxation?
[quote][p][bold]Stapleman[/bold] wrote: Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses. They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.[/p][/quote]I pay Council Tax on my home. My tenant pays it on his home I rent to him. I would have thought you'd have figured that, or are you suggesting some form of double taxation? Dai Rear
  • Score: -9

10:13am Tue 8 Jul 14

southamptongeordie says...

The Labour Council promised openness and honesty when elected.

Sadly openness and honesty was not available prior to the local elections only a few weeks ago.
The Labour Council promised openness and honesty when elected. Sadly openness and honesty was not available prior to the local elections only a few weeks ago. southamptongeordie
  • Score: 13

10:16am Tue 8 Jul 14

House Sparrow says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Stapleman wrote:
Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses.
They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.
I pay Council Tax on my home. My tenant pays it on his home I rent to him. I would have thought you'd have figured that, or are you suggesting some form of double taxation?
Students do not pay council tax, therefore houses rented to students do not attract council tax
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stapleman[/bold] wrote: Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses. They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.[/p][/quote]I pay Council Tax on my home. My tenant pays it on his home I rent to him. I would have thought you'd have figured that, or are you suggesting some form of double taxation?[/p][/quote]Students do not pay council tax, therefore houses rented to students do not attract council tax House Sparrow
  • Score: 20

10:20am Tue 8 Jul 14

All said and done says...

Stapleman wrote:
Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses.
They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.
No the don't. The people that live in them do.
[quote][p][bold]Stapleman[/bold] wrote: Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses. They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.[/p][/quote]No the don't. The people that live in them do. All said and done
  • Score: -7

10:41am Tue 8 Jul 14

Kirsty666 says...

The council should stop their expenses cut their own wages so they can't afford a £350,000 house for example live life like a NORMAL person and stop these unions as all they do is strike every day and get nowhere.
The council should stop their expenses cut their own wages so they can't afford a £350,000 house for example live life like a NORMAL person and stop these unions as all they do is strike every day and get nowhere. Kirsty666
  • Score: 0

10:42am Tue 8 Jul 14

Kirsty666 says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.
Why should we pay more council tax when they're on high enough wages and get expenses paid on top?
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.[/p][/quote]Why should we pay more council tax when they're on high enough wages and get expenses paid on top? Kirsty666
  • Score: 2

10:49am Tue 8 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Kirsty666 wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.
Why should we pay more council tax when they're on high enough wages and get expenses paid on top?
Thats interesting .... what are their wages then?
[quote][p][bold]Kirsty666[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.[/p][/quote]Why should we pay more council tax when they're on high enough wages and get expenses paid on top?[/p][/quote]Thats interesting .... what are their wages then? Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -3

11:07am Tue 8 Jul 14

Rockhopper says...

SilvanDryad wrote:
Miguel Raton wrote:
Axe all the non jobs and pay market rates for employees that are actually required and expenditure on front line services could actually be increased while making reductions in council tax. Is anyone surprised that a council has more than 83 people in 'HR'?
HR is actually provided by Capita, as well as IT. SCC Business Support employees provide support to staff regarding travel arrangments, stationery orders and arranging meetings, for example.
To be fair, you need quite a few staff in HR if you employ several thousand people. (Especially to organise the redundancies.)
So the work carried out by Capita is being monitored/checked by departments that are still employed by SCC?
Similar operated in the NHS/PFI scandal and offered nothing to front line services yet drained much needed funds in salary/admin costs.
No doubt these staff are similar in being highly paid at manager/supervisor level and operate by creating non-existence problems in order to try and justify their existence.
[quote][p][bold]SilvanDryad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Miguel Raton[/bold] wrote: Axe all the non jobs and pay market rates for employees that are actually required and expenditure on front line services could actually be increased while making reductions in council tax. Is anyone surprised that a council has more than 83 people in 'HR'?[/p][/quote]HR is actually provided by Capita, as well as IT. SCC Business Support employees provide support to staff regarding travel arrangments, stationery orders and arranging meetings, for example. To be fair, you need quite a few staff in HR if you employ several thousand people. (Especially to organise the redundancies.)[/p][/quote]So the work carried out by Capita is being monitored/checked by departments that are still employed by SCC? Similar operated in the NHS/PFI scandal and offered nothing to front line services yet drained much needed funds in salary/admin costs. No doubt these staff are similar in being highly paid at manager/supervisor level and operate by creating non-existence problems in order to try and justify their existence. Rockhopper
  • Score: 12

11:10am Tue 8 Jul 14

Stapleman says...

All said and done wrote:
Stapleman wrote:
Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses.
They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.
No the don't. The people that live in them do.
If you are not a student you pay council tax, if you live in a rented property with only students in it you pay no council tax, the landlord pays no council tax if the house has only students in it.
[quote][p][bold]All said and done[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stapleman[/bold] wrote: Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses. They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.[/p][/quote]No the don't. The people that live in them do.[/p][/quote]If you are not a student you pay council tax, if you live in a rented property with only students in it you pay no council tax, the landlord pays no council tax if the house has only students in it. Stapleman
  • Score: 13

11:22am Tue 8 Jul 14

Torchie1 says...

House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link! Torchie1
  • Score: 8

11:43am Tue 8 Jul 14

huckit P says...

Stapleman wrote:
Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses.
They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.
The tenant of rented property is responsible for paying his own council tax. Otherwise the council would need to find even more money to pay for its own housing stock.
If a property is empty it can be granted a reduction in tax for a short period, otherwise the owner must pay.
[quote][p][bold]Stapleman[/bold] wrote: Perhaps its time private landlords paid council tax on their second, third, fourth homes that they rent to students. I believe they pay no council tax on these properties. The students pay no local tax either. The argument used to be that this was covered by a grant from central government, if this has been cut why should council tax payers subsidise the landlords businesses. They could also make the landlord responsible for the Wheelie bins being used correctly with maybe a deposit scheme refundable if the council do not have to continually clean up after the landlords tenants.[/p][/quote]The tenant of rented property is responsible for paying his own council tax. Otherwise the council would need to find even more money to pay for its own housing stock. If a property is empty it can be granted a reduction in tax for a short period, otherwise the owner must pay. huckit P
  • Score: 1

12:09pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Taskforce 141 says...

Its OK that services are going we have a Sea **** Museum! What a bright idea that was from the torie inbreed swines.

We can all see what is going to happen - all services will become private and sadly so will the NHS.

we can all see it yet we all seem to be ignorant to the facts!

This city went to the dogs a long time ago, its just taking a while to fully sink below the water line!
Its OK that services are going we have a Sea **** Museum! What a bright idea that was from the torie inbreed swines. We can all see what is going to happen - all services will become private and sadly so will the NHS. we can all see it yet we all seem to be ignorant to the facts! This city went to the dogs a long time ago, its just taking a while to fully sink below the water line! Taskforce 141
  • Score: 2

12:11pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Revolution802 says...

It makes me happy that the public sector are making cuts, I'm not saying all of them are lazy, unintelligent jobs woths but it will make them want to work hard for their jobs and earn the right to sit at their desks like the rest of us have to on a daily basis.
Just to be clear, I used to serve in the Army on the front line, now I work in an office and realise the difference between the public and private sector work ethic.
It makes me happy that the public sector are making cuts, I'm not saying all of them are lazy, unintelligent jobs woths but it will make them want to work hard for their jobs and earn the right to sit at their desks like the rest of us have to on a daily basis. Just to be clear, I used to serve in the Army on the front line, now I work in an office and realise the difference between the public and private sector work ethic. Revolution802
  • Score: 7

12:17pm Tue 8 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Excellent points from Big Fella 777, Loosehead, Sotonboy 84, Miguel Raton, Mintybee ( please stay in Southampton and vote Tory and see the difference), Dai Rear, Saint 61, Southamptongeordie and Kirsty 666.

Efficiency is the only way to improve costs and standards of living, you never near Labour saying we the council will become more efficient.
They pay themselves more and deliver less, vote Tory for a better council in 2015.
Excellent points from Big Fella 777, Loosehead, Sotonboy 84, Miguel Raton, Mintybee ( please stay in Southampton and vote Tory and see the difference), Dai Rear, Saint 61, Southamptongeordie and Kirsty 666. Efficiency is the only way to improve costs and standards of living, you never near Labour saying we the council will become more efficient. They pay themselves more and deliver less, vote Tory for a better council in 2015. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Subject48 says...

A city where you have 2 universities and 1000's of households not paying council tax... of course its not helping the budget hole.

To be fair having been a southampton student myself I know the situation first hand. Landlords rent crap hole, 5 bed houses, at extorionate prices to students who pay for it using a government loan which majority will never pay back (They will either move abroad or earn under the repayment threshold) This drains the sentral government coffers as well as drain local coffers by the fact hundreds of households housing 5 ppl do not pay council tax.

Of course this is but a minor flaw in the overal system. £30 million will not be covered by council tax from students alone by no means, but, it would help. This could be covered half by students themselves and half by the landlord or a 30-70 split.

As to the NHS issue I recently called my surgery to request an appointment when i was not well and was told "we havent been doing appointments for 18 months, a doctor will call you will have a phone appt" imagine the stunned silence when I heard this...

I say do away with the NHS let me opt out and pay for private healthcare insurance. At leats then I will recieve premium service and will be able to complain with justification....

Anyway bottom line is I honestly do not believe this counties problems can be fixed at a local level. I dont think its possible to do it at a national level without some very drastics steps borderlining facism...
A city where you have 2 universities and 1000's of households not paying council tax... of course its not helping the budget hole. To be fair having been a southampton student myself I know the situation first hand. Landlords rent crap hole, 5 bed houses, at extorionate prices to students who pay for it using a government loan which majority will never pay back (They will either move abroad or earn under the repayment threshold) This drains the sentral government coffers as well as drain local coffers by the fact hundreds of households housing 5 ppl do not pay council tax. Of course this is but a minor flaw in the overal system. £30 million will not be covered by council tax from students alone by no means, but, it would help. This could be covered half by students themselves and half by the landlord or a 30-70 split. As to the NHS issue I recently called my surgery to request an appointment when i was not well and was told "we havent been doing appointments for 18 months, a doctor will call you will have a phone appt" imagine the stunned silence when I heard this... I say do away with the NHS let me opt out and pay for private healthcare insurance. At leats then I will recieve premium service and will be able to complain with justification.... Anyway bottom line is I honestly do not believe this counties problems can be fixed at a local level. I dont think its possible to do it at a national level without some very drastics steps borderlining facism... Subject48
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Tue 8 Jul 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship. southy
  • Score: -8

12:39pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Subject48 says...

Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
classic southy
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]classic southy Subject48
  • Score: 6

12:48pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Labour, no strategy, no ideas not a clue.
How about spending some of the millions you have put in the bank ?
Royston Smith spent it on his prestige project. You know, the one that was going to have visitors flocking to the city, and would make money 'hand over fist;.

The Sea City White Elephant, that is not even attracting 'break even' figures.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Labour, no strategy, no ideas not a clue. How about spending some of the millions you have put in the bank ?[/p][/quote]Royston Smith spent it on his prestige project. You know, the one that was going to have visitors flocking to the city, and would make money 'hand over fist;. The Sea City White Elephant, that is not even attracting 'break even' figures. Linesman
  • Score: 2

12:56pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Excellent points from Big Fella 777, Loosehead, Sotonboy 84, Miguel Raton, Mintybee ( please stay in Southampton and vote Tory and see the difference), Dai Rear, Saint 61, Southamptongeordie and Kirsty 666.

Efficiency is the only way to improve costs and standards of living, you never near Labour saying we the council will become more efficient.
They pay themselves more and deliver less, vote Tory for a better council in 2015.
It is a Tory government that has cut the grants.

It was a Tory administration that wasted massive amounts of money on the Sea City Museum that, not only has to be paid for, but is losing money because not enough people are visiting.

We are still paying for Royston Smith's incompetence, plus having to deal with the cuts made in the government grants, and the restrictions that they have placed on the council with regard raising council tax.

Even the most stupid person would realise that, if you have a cut in income, and the cost of living is increasing, cuts have to be made.

The City Council's income has been cut, thanks to Cameron & Co, and the cuts that have to be made are thanks to that action.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Excellent points from Big Fella 777, Loosehead, Sotonboy 84, Miguel Raton, Mintybee ( please stay in Southampton and vote Tory and see the difference), Dai Rear, Saint 61, Southamptongeordie and Kirsty 666. Efficiency is the only way to improve costs and standards of living, you never near Labour saying we the council will become more efficient. They pay themselves more and deliver less, vote Tory for a better council in 2015.[/p][/quote]It is a Tory government that has cut the grants. It was a Tory administration that wasted massive amounts of money on the Sea City Museum that, not only has to be paid for, but is losing money because not enough people are visiting. We are still paying for Royston Smith's incompetence, plus having to deal with the cuts made in the government grants, and the restrictions that they have placed on the council with regard raising council tax. Even the most stupid person would realise that, if you have a cut in income, and the cost of living is increasing, cuts have to be made. The City Council's income has been cut, thanks to Cameron & Co, and the cuts that have to be made are thanks to that action. Linesman
  • Score: -3

1:11pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

It doesn't matter who the Council leader is, the cuts are going to have to take place.

I'd like to see a report that shows what reductions Parliament have made in their own nest. I believe they still have a subsidised bar so they can all get drunk and fight each other? With the amount of scoungers in that building that would save a fortune if they upped the prices.

I suppose they all get a free lunch and I bet it won't be a cheese sandwich either.

I know cuts must be made, that's clear. But it has to start at the top and work down. Afterall, the whole point in the Government is to run this country on behalf of the public and not for themselves.
It doesn't matter who the Council leader is, the cuts are going to have to take place. I'd like to see a report that shows what reductions Parliament have made in their own nest. I believe they still have a subsidised bar so they can all get drunk and fight each other? With the amount of scoungers in that building that would save a fortune if they upped the prices. I suppose they all get a free lunch and I bet it won't be a cheese sandwich either. I know cuts must be made, that's clear. But it has to start at the top and work down. Afterall, the whole point in the Government is to run this country on behalf of the public and not for themselves. IronLady2010
  • Score: 8

1:16pm Tue 8 Jul 14

sammytsang says...

My solution:

Applies only to those who are paid by taxpayer.

45hours working week no more. £10 per hour pay minimum.

Cap of £100,000 per year max wage based on 45 hours working week.

Government to never borrow money ever again.
My solution: Applies only to those who are paid by taxpayer. 45hours working week no more. £10 per hour pay minimum. Cap of £100,000 per year max wage based on 45 hours working week. Government to never borrow money ever again. sammytsang
  • Score: 3

1:19pm Tue 8 Jul 14

southy says...

sammytsang wrote:
My solution:

Applies only to those who are paid by taxpayer.

45hours working week no more. £10 per hour pay minimum.

Cap of £100,000 per year max wage based on 45 hours working week.

Government to never borrow money ever again.
sounds good but it will not cure the high unemployment that is being kept high deliberitly
[quote][p][bold]sammytsang[/bold] wrote: My solution: Applies only to those who are paid by taxpayer. 45hours working week no more. £10 per hour pay minimum. Cap of £100,000 per year max wage based on 45 hours working week. Government to never borrow money ever again.[/p][/quote]sounds good but it will not cure the high unemployment that is being kept high deliberitly southy
  • Score: 1

1:27pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

southy wrote:
sammytsang wrote:
My solution:

Applies only to those who are paid by taxpayer.

45hours working week no more. £10 per hour pay minimum.

Cap of £100,000 per year max wage based on 45 hours working week.

Government to never borrow money ever again.
sounds good but it will not cure the high unemployment that is being kept high deliberitly
That's right Southy. Capiterlists in top hats and frock coats jump on young innocents and frighten them out of applying for a job, and kick them down the dole office instead. Oh how we capiterlists love to pay all that tax to carry the welfare class.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sammytsang[/bold] wrote: My solution: Applies only to those who are paid by taxpayer. 45hours working week no more. £10 per hour pay minimum. Cap of £100,000 per year max wage based on 45 hours working week. Government to never borrow money ever again.[/p][/quote]sounds good but it will not cure the high unemployment that is being kept high deliberitly[/p][/quote]That's right Southy. Capiterlists in top hats and frock coats jump on young innocents and frighten them out of applying for a job, and kick them down the dole office instead. Oh how we capiterlists love to pay all that tax to carry the welfare class. Dai Rear
  • Score: 3

1:39pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

sammytsang wrote:
My solution:

Applies only to those who are paid by taxpayer.

45hours working week no more. £10 per hour pay minimum.

Cap of £100,000 per year max wage based on 45 hours working week.

Government to never borrow money ever again.
As we, the taxpayers, pay Cameron and Osborne's wages, I very much doubt that they will take your advice.
[quote][p][bold]sammytsang[/bold] wrote: My solution: Applies only to those who are paid by taxpayer. 45hours working week no more. £10 per hour pay minimum. Cap of £100,000 per year max wage based on 45 hours working week. Government to never borrow money ever again.[/p][/quote]As we, the taxpayers, pay Cameron and Osborne's wages, I very much doubt that they will take your advice. Linesman
  • Score: -2

1:43pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Revolution802 says...

I heard that a man in his late 20s , from Eastleigh, no background in politics is trying to form his own part where the people who work hard benefit, council workers have matching salaries and Benefits to the private sector, working with the same ethos. I understand that he wants to control immigration not dispose of it, basically he takes ideas from all parties and wants to put in place what people want within reason.
I heard that a man in his late 20s , from Eastleigh, no background in politics is trying to form his own part where the people who work hard benefit, council workers have matching salaries and Benefits to the private sector, working with the same ethos. I understand that he wants to control immigration not dispose of it, basically he takes ideas from all parties and wants to put in place what people want within reason. Revolution802
  • Score: 3

1:48pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained. Linesman
  • Score: -3

1:48pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Revolution802 says...

Revolution802 wrote:
I heard that a man in his late 20s , from Eastleigh, no background in politics is trying to form his own part where the people who work hard benefit, council workers have matching salaries and Benefits to the private sector, working with the same ethos. I understand that he wants to control immigration not dispose of it, basically he takes ideas from all parties and wants to put in place what people want within reason.
By the way, I like this guy as he speaks sense, has a little UKIP in him but very intelligent in his ideas.
[quote][p][bold]Revolution802[/bold] wrote: I heard that a man in his late 20s , from Eastleigh, no background in politics is trying to form his own part where the people who work hard benefit, council workers have matching salaries and Benefits to the private sector, working with the same ethos. I understand that he wants to control immigration not dispose of it, basically he takes ideas from all parties and wants to put in place what people want within reason.[/p][/quote]By the way, I like this guy as he speaks sense, has a little UKIP in him but very intelligent in his ideas. Revolution802
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs.

Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget.

We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay.

We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job.

This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.[/p][/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs. Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget. We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay. We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job. This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x IronLady2010
  • Score: 1

1:57pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

"the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government," which were an inevitable result of the incompetence of the economically illiterate Brown
"the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government," which were an inevitable result of the incompetence of the economically illiterate Brown Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote]Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please? Torchie1
  • Score: 2

2:19pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away.
.
How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... .
.
The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ...
.
Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme
The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away. . How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... . . The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ... . Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

2:27pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away.
.
How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... .
.
The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ...
.
Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme
Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart?

My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it!

If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income.

Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it.

We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away. . How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... . . The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ... . Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme[/p][/quote]Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart? My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it! If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income. Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it. We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down. IronLady2010
  • Score: 5

2:34pm Tue 8 Jul 14

03alpe01 says...

At least there is still enough money for a brand new 'landmark' arts centre
At least there is still enough money for a brand new 'landmark' arts centre 03alpe01
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away.
.
How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... .
.
The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ...
.
Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme
Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart?

My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it!

If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income.

Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it.

We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down.
I do not know how the Labour council feel about the mueseum ..... as i do not know them or speak for them ..... I speak as a taxpayer
.
However, you may recall that I and several other posters stated three main issues .... A) The Tories were using £10m from taxpayers to fund it ..... B) its location was completely wrong ....... C ) It was an Ego trip for the Council leader ...... IMO all of these points have proven to be correct ...
.
I dont know what has been done to promote it but the Titanic theme was never going to last very long was it .... and now as taxpayers we are having to pay all over again for it .....
.
As i said ..... The Tories have done nothing for this City. The people of Southampton realised that at the elections two years ago and again in May
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away. . How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... . . The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ... . Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme[/p][/quote]Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart? My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it! If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income. Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it. We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down.[/p][/quote]I do not know how the Labour council feel about the mueseum ..... as i do not know them or speak for them ..... I speak as a taxpayer . However, you may recall that I and several other posters stated three main issues .... A) The Tories were using £10m from taxpayers to fund it ..... B) its location was completely wrong ....... C ) It was an Ego trip for the Council leader ...... IMO all of these points have proven to be correct ... . I dont know what has been done to promote it but the Titanic theme was never going to last very long was it .... and now as taxpayers we are having to pay all over again for it ..... . As i said ..... The Tories have done nothing for this City. The people of Southampton realised that at the elections two years ago and again in May Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

2:47pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away.
.
How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... .
.
The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ...
.
Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme
Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart?

My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it!

If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income.

Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it.

We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down.
I do not know how the Labour council feel about the mueseum ..... as i do not know them or speak for them ..... I speak as a taxpayer
.
However, you may recall that I and several other posters stated three main issues .... A) The Tories were using £10m from taxpayers to fund it ..... B) its location was completely wrong ....... C ) It was an Ego trip for the Council leader ...... IMO all of these points have proven to be correct ...
.
I dont know what has been done to promote it but the Titanic theme was never going to last very long was it .... and now as taxpayers we are having to pay all over again for it .....
.
As i said ..... The Tories have done nothing for this City. The people of Southampton realised that at the elections two years ago and again in May
What would be your suggestion? It's been built and is in place.

I'm guessing it's staffed by Council workers, so maybe we close it down and cut more jobs?

My point is that the more negative you are toward something the more it's likely to fail.

Maybe the fellow Union members could do an advert campaign and be positive rather than just moan about job cuts and pay cuts?

Surely everyone wants to keep their job, constantly moaning about things doesn't make things into a positive is what i'm trying to get across.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away. . How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... . . The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ... . Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme[/p][/quote]Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart? My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it! If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income. Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it. We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down.[/p][/quote]I do not know how the Labour council feel about the mueseum ..... as i do not know them or speak for them ..... I speak as a taxpayer . However, you may recall that I and several other posters stated three main issues .... A) The Tories were using £10m from taxpayers to fund it ..... B) its location was completely wrong ....... C ) It was an Ego trip for the Council leader ...... IMO all of these points have proven to be correct ... . I dont know what has been done to promote it but the Titanic theme was never going to last very long was it .... and now as taxpayers we are having to pay all over again for it ..... . As i said ..... The Tories have done nothing for this City. The people of Southampton realised that at the elections two years ago and again in May[/p][/quote]What would be your suggestion? It's been built and is in place. I'm guessing it's staffed by Council workers, so maybe we close it down and cut more jobs? My point is that the more negative you are toward something the more it's likely to fail. Maybe the fellow Union members could do an advert campaign and be positive rather than just moan about job cuts and pay cuts? Surely everyone wants to keep their job, constantly moaning about things doesn't make things into a positive is what i'm trying to get across. IronLady2010
  • Score: 2

2:51pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City?

What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control?

That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council?
May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City? What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control? That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council? IronLady2010
  • Score: 4

2:51pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Subject48 says...

Revolution802 wrote:
I heard that a man in his late 20s , from Eastleigh, no background in politics is trying to form his own part where the people who work hard benefit, council workers have matching salaries and Benefits to the private sector, working with the same ethos. I understand that he wants to control immigration not dispose of it, basically he takes ideas from all parties and wants to put in place what people want within reason.
I am very interested in this idea. Could you provide a link?
[quote][p][bold]Revolution802[/bold] wrote: I heard that a man in his late 20s , from Eastleigh, no background in politics is trying to form his own part where the people who work hard benefit, council workers have matching salaries and Benefits to the private sector, working with the same ethos. I understand that he wants to control immigration not dispose of it, basically he takes ideas from all parties and wants to put in place what people want within reason.[/p][/quote]I am very interested in this idea. Could you provide a link? Subject48
  • Score: 2

3:08pm Tue 8 Jul 14

George4th says...

Oh to be a die hard Labour supporter!

It is akin to belonging to the Society for the Preservation of the Dodo!

There are two facts that highlight their incompetence. They are the two times that they have been in government and each time they have left us at the door of the IMF - BANKRUPT!

Wake Up! The reason we have austerity, and will continue to have austerity for some years to come, is because of the last Labour government - there is no other reason!
Oh to be a die hard Labour supporter! It is akin to belonging to the Society for the Preservation of the Dodo! There are two facts that highlight their incompetence. They are the two times that they have been in government and each time they have left us at the door of the IMF - BANKRUPT! Wake Up! The reason we have austerity, and will continue to have austerity for some years to come, is because of the last Labour government - there is no other reason! George4th
  • Score: 1

3:15pm Tue 8 Jul 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?
The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote]Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?[/p][/quote]The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages southy
  • Score: -2

3:18pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?
The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages
It's another secret then which only you have paid for?
[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]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote]Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?[/p][/quote]The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages[/p][/quote]It's another secret then which only you have paid for? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Tue 8 Jul 14

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?
The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages
It's another secret then which only you have paid for?
No I rely on some else to copy and e-mail me the parts that i would be interested in or ask about.

Here some thing to keep your eyes open for, The IMF is going to announce some thing or do some thing this mth the favour dates are between 20th to end of July. don't ask what it will be I don't know yet, Just been told some thing is going down in the IMF
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/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]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote]Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?[/p][/quote]The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages[/p][/quote]It's another secret then which only you have paid for?[/p][/quote]No I rely on some else to copy and e-mail me the parts that i would be interested in or ask about. Here some thing to keep your eyes open for, The IMF is going to announce some thing or do some thing this mth the favour dates are between 20th to end of July. don't ask what it will be I don't know yet, Just been told some thing is going down in the IMF southy
  • Score: -1

3:43pm Tue 8 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Many Labour councillors are on record as saying they like the Museum, should we have no attractions in Southampton?

Many sensible comments on here to save money for the council, don't Labour care about the cost of living for us taxpayers?

Linesman as usual you get 10/10 for loyalty, maybe less for some of your judgement.
Many Labour councillors are on record as saying they like the Museum, should we have no attractions in Southampton? Many sensible comments on here to save money for the council, don't Labour care about the cost of living for us taxpayers? Linesman as usual you get 10/10 for loyalty, maybe less for some of your judgement. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 3

3:45pm Tue 8 Jul 14

mr nobody says...

I have been saying since they took power that they will bring this city to its knees and the public will suffer greater ,Simon Letts dose not have any body including himself capable of make correct management decisions , him and Jacquie Rayment are a total waste of our money paid to them in their very large wage packets ,including many of the other labour Councillors.But lets get this right the buck stops at Letts and Rayment as they are the to party leaders , together they are both heartless ,disrespectful ,rude, argument and very much incapable of being in control of our city .Just look how they treat our cemeteries the last resting place of our lost love ones and friends ,look at the bad state of our roads and the litter on our streets ,look at the services we have lost under them already, swimming pools, homes for the ill and elderly and much much more , YET they still find the money to pay the wages of a Councillor who stood by his wife after she called the people of southampton some very nasty and upsetting names ,Cllr Thorpe should have been sacked straight away but no once again the non respect for the public from this Labour party was seen by all . And also they still manage to find the money to re-carpet their offices at the civic center while they kick an elderly person out of the one place they feel safe a rest home .Now i could go on all day listing the disrespectful and wrong things this Labour council has done but am not , what am going to say is i truly believe its now the time for the people stand up and be counted and force this incompetent Labour council to step down from control of this city at give back temporary control to the Tories at least they have a heart and give respect when its called for. Now i know there are many who are going to disagree with this , my answer to them is next time your walking down your street or see another service disappear that you used a lot ask yourself if your happy with it because i guarantee it will happen a lot more under Labour our city will be one of the worst in the country and i am not willing to see this happen so its act now before it gets worse .

Mr Steve Plumridge a voice of concern
I have been saying since they took power that they will bring this city to its knees and the public will suffer greater ,Simon Letts dose not have any body including himself capable of make correct management decisions , him and Jacquie Rayment are a total waste of our money paid to them in their very large wage packets ,including many of the other labour Councillors.But lets get this right the buck stops at Letts and Rayment as they are the to party leaders , together they are both heartless ,disrespectful ,rude, argument and very much incapable of being in control of our city .Just look how they treat our cemeteries the last resting place of our lost love ones and friends ,look at the bad state of our roads and the litter on our streets ,look at the services we have lost under them already, swimming pools, homes for the ill and elderly and much much more , YET they still find the money to pay the wages of a Councillor who stood by his wife after she called the people of southampton some very nasty and upsetting names ,Cllr Thorpe should have been sacked straight away but no once again the non respect for the public from this Labour party was seen by all . And also they still manage to find the money to re-carpet their offices at the civic center while they kick an elderly person out of the one place they feel safe a rest home .Now i could go on all day listing the disrespectful and wrong things this Labour council has done but am not , what am going to say is i truly believe its now the time for the people stand up and be counted and force this incompetent Labour council to step down from control of this city at give back temporary control to the Tories at least they have a heart and give respect when its called for. Now i know there are many who are going to disagree with this , my answer to them is next time your walking down your street or see another service disappear that you used a lot ask yourself if your happy with it because i guarantee it will happen a lot more under Labour our city will be one of the worst in the country and i am not willing to see this happen so its act now before it gets worse . Mr Steve Plumridge a voice of concern mr nobody
  • Score: 4

3:48pm Tue 8 Jul 14

miltonarcher says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
If Labour get into power you can kiss goodbye to the UK. Imagine Balls in number 11, shambles!
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]If Labour get into power you can kiss goodbye to the UK. Imagine Balls in number 11, shambles! miltonarcher
  • Score: 4

3:50pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs.

Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget.

We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay.

We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job.

This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x
Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes.

Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped.

I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.[/p][/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs. Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget. We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay. We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job. This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x[/p][/quote]Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes. Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped. I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council. Linesman
  • Score: 3

3:52pm Tue 8 Jul 14

miltonarcher says...

southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
You still here spouting your rubbish? We all hoped you'd left these shores for the joys of North Korea.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]You still here spouting your rubbish? We all hoped you'd left these shores for the joys of North Korea. miltonarcher
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Tue 8 Jul 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
saint61 wrote:
The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush, which offers care for people aged over 65 who suffer from dementia, which could lead to 29 job losses.

NO MENTION OF THE OLD AGE PATIENTS WHO SUFFER FROM DEMENTIA. WILL THE COUNCIL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REHOUSING THEM?

SURELY THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THE LABOUR COUNCIL CAN CUT BEFORE THROWING OLD PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET.

I HOPE THE LABOUR COUNCILORS CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT.
The TUSC did warn people over this that it did not matter if it was a L:ib/dem or Tory or Labour council cuts was going to happen on a large scale, Just that with the Tory's it would of happen quicker where as Labour making the same amount of cuts would take a bit longer on it.
A promise from Simon Letts that they would take the fight to government never happen and nor will it, they will just implement the cuts but in there own way and the Tory's will do when they are told to do from government and head office.
No, 'the TUSC' only quoted the statistics that were already available.
Everybody knew there were going to be cuts as they were announced well before 'the TUSC' repeated the information already in the public domain.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush, which offers care for people aged over 65 who suffer from dementia, which could lead to 29 job losses. NO MENTION OF THE OLD AGE PATIENTS WHO SUFFER FROM DEMENTIA. WILL THE COUNCIL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REHOUSING THEM? SURELY THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THE LABOUR COUNCIL CAN CUT BEFORE THROWING OLD PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET. I HOPE THE LABOUR COUNCILORS CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT.[/p][/quote]The TUSC did warn people over this that it did not matter if it was a L:ib/dem or Tory or Labour council cuts was going to happen on a large scale, Just that with the Tory's it would of happen quicker where as Labour making the same amount of cuts would take a bit longer on it. A promise from Simon Letts that they would take the fight to government never happen and nor will it, they will just implement the cuts but in there own way and the Tory's will do when they are told to do from government and head office.[/p][/quote]No, 'the TUSC' only quoted the statistics that were already available. Everybody knew there were going to be cuts as they were announced well before 'the TUSC' repeated the information already in the public domain. freefinker
  • Score: 10

3:58pm Tue 8 Jul 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
.. so that's a no then?
You can't provide a link. Just a load of the usual waffle.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote].. so that's a no then? You can't provide a link. Just a load of the usual waffle. freefinker
  • Score: 1

3:58pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Many Labour councillors are on record as saying they like the Museum, should we have no attractions in Southampton?

Many sensible comments on here to save money for the council, don't Labour care about the cost of living for us taxpayers?

Linesman as usual you get 10/10 for loyalty, maybe less for some of your judgement.
I like the Museum, but that does not mean that I do not think that it is a Luxury the city could not afford to build, and cannot afford to run at a loss.

From the time it was first proposed, I was of the opinion that it was situated in the wrong part of the city, because it is not the area where visitors to the city go.

You ask, 'don't Labour care about the cost of living for us taxpayers?'

It may have escaped your notice, but we have had a Tory-led government for More Than FOUR Years, and it is their policies and activities that have the biggest effect on the cost of living, They are the ones that have given the tax boost to the highest earners, while hitting those that are most in need of help.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Many Labour councillors are on record as saying they like the Museum, should we have no attractions in Southampton? Many sensible comments on here to save money for the council, don't Labour care about the cost of living for us taxpayers? Linesman as usual you get 10/10 for loyalty, maybe less for some of your judgement.[/p][/quote]I like the Museum, but that does not mean that I do not think that it is a Luxury the city could not afford to build, and cannot afford to run at a loss. From the time it was first proposed, I was of the opinion that it was situated in the wrong part of the city, because it is not the area where visitors to the city go. You ask, 'don't Labour care about the cost of living for us taxpayers?' It may have escaped your notice, but we have had a Tory-led government for More Than FOUR Years, and it is their policies and activities that have the biggest effect on the cost of living, They are the ones that have given the tax boost to the highest earners, while hitting those that are most in need of help. Linesman
  • Score: 5

3:59pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs.

Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget.

We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay.

We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job.

This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x
Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes.

Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped.

I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.
He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it.

Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid.

Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City.

All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.[/p][/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs. Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget. We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay. We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job. This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x[/p][/quote]Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes. Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped. I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.[/p][/quote]He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it. Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid. Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City. All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour. IronLady2010
  • Score: 1

4:02pm Tue 8 Jul 14

northamboyofold says...

southy wrote:
townieboy wrote:
Have they sacked all the gardeners already ?? around my place its like a jungle with everything overgrown.......joke


.
Most have gone all ready, those few that are left have to do street cleaning also as well as do the gardening, they been cut back that much the system no longer works and this dept is being getting ready to be handed over to the private sector to run, which in the end will end up costing more, it will be enviable that the Council tax which is going to be replace soon with an area tax that the LEP will control and dictate on rates will be tripled
What street cleaning, I have not seen a road sweeper man or mechanical around here for ages, but what I have seen is a lot of council vehicles that are taken home by workers ( That's a benefit in kind and is taxable does it get declared??). And at times they are outside of there houses during the day when perhaps they should be working, if they are on holiday they should be left at the yard.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote: Have they sacked all the gardeners already ?? around my place its like a jungle with everything overgrown.......joke .[/p][/quote]Most have gone all ready, those few that are left have to do street cleaning also as well as do the gardening, they been cut back that much the system no longer works and this dept is being getting ready to be handed over to the private sector to run, which in the end will end up costing more, it will be enviable that the Council tax which is going to be replace soon with an area tax that the LEP will control and dictate on rates will be tripled[/p][/quote]What street cleaning, I have not seen a road sweeper man or mechanical around here for ages, but what I have seen is a lot of council vehicles that are taken home by workers ( That's a benefit in kind and is taxable does it get declared??). And at times they are outside of there houses during the day when perhaps they should be working, if they are on holiday they should be left at the yard. northamboyofold
  • Score: 5

4:03pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

"They are the ones that have given the tax boost to the highest earners, while hitting those that are most in need of help"
On the contrary, the most aspirational pay 90% of all the tax, which, as you know, is unsustainable.
"They are the ones that have given the tax boost to the highest earners, while hitting those that are most in need of help" On the contrary, the most aspirational pay 90% of all the tax, which, as you know, is unsustainable. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

4:08pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?
The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages
It's another secret then which only you have paid for?
No I rely on some else to copy and e-mail me the parts that i would be interested in or ask about.

Here some thing to keep your eyes open for, The IMF is going to announce some thing or do some thing this mth the favour dates are between 20th to end of July. don't ask what it will be I don't know yet, Just been told some thing is going down in the IMF
LOL, so this someone is more reliable than Google?

Hilarious, so you base everything on hearsay
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/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]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote]Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?[/p][/quote]The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages[/p][/quote]It's another secret then which only you have paid for?[/p][/quote]No I rely on some else to copy and e-mail me the parts that i would be interested in or ask about. Here some thing to keep your eyes open for, The IMF is going to announce some thing or do some thing this mth the favour dates are between 20th to end of July. don't ask what it will be I don't know yet, Just been told some thing is going down in the IMF[/p][/quote]LOL, so this someone is more reliable than Google? Hilarious, so you base everything on hearsay IronLady2010
  • Score: 3

4:12pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?
The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages
What confused me was the phrase 'Full text of the Treaty' but while I'm trying to understand it can you let me know the numbers of the pages and what sections to look in.
[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]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote]Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?[/p][/quote]The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages[/p][/quote]What confused me was the phrase 'Full text of the Treaty' but while I'm trying to understand it can you let me know the numbers of the pages and what sections to look in. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away.
.
How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... .
.
The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ...
.
Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme
Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart?

My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it!

If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income.

Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it.

We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down.
"Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart?"

One piece at a time.

I have no doubt that what the Labour Council say in public is different to what they think - and before you make claims of their duplicity and not being truthful, I will explain why.

If they loudly proclaimed that it was a total failure and a complete waste of money, that is going to be a millstone around the city's finances for years to come, how many extra visitors do you think that would bring to the museum>

With regard the claim that they have done nothing to promote it and are just sitting back to watch it fall apart, I assume that you are aware that the City's income has been drastically reduced. Who do you think is keeping the museum open, even though it is not attracting enough visitors to cover the running costs?

The current administration are saddled with the cost of running something that they were against when they were in opposition, and forecasting the problems that such a project would face. Now they are faced with dealing with the problems that they were foresaw, and that could have been avoided if the previous administration had listened to their warnings.

It is easy to criticise the council and claim that it is not promoting the museum, but how would you promote it? How would you 'sell a white elephant' to the general public?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away. . How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... . . The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ... . Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme[/p][/quote]Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart? My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it! If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income. Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it. We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down.[/p][/quote]"Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart?" One piece at a time. I have no doubt that what the Labour Council say in public is different to what they think - and before you make claims of their duplicity and not being truthful, I will explain why. If they loudly proclaimed that it was a total failure and a complete waste of money, that is going to be a millstone around the city's finances for years to come, how many extra visitors do you think that would bring to the museum> With regard the claim that they have done nothing to promote it and are just sitting back to watch it fall apart, I assume that you are aware that the City's income has been drastically reduced. Who do you think is keeping the museum open, even though it is not attracting enough visitors to cover the running costs? The current administration are saddled with the cost of running something that they were against when they were in opposition, and forecasting the problems that such a project would face. Now they are faced with dealing with the problems that they were foresaw, and that could have been avoided if the previous administration had listened to their warnings. It is easy to criticise the council and claim that it is not promoting the museum, but how would you promote it? How would you 'sell a white elephant' to the general public? Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs.

Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget.

We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay.

We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job.

This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x
Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes.

Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped.

I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.
He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it.

Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid.

Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City.

All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.
Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions.

It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk.

He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come.

IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.[/p][/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs. Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget. We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay. We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job. This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x[/p][/quote]Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes. Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped. I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.[/p][/quote]He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it. Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid. Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City. All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.[/p][/quote]Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions. It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk. He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come. IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections. Linesman
  • Score: 3

4:23pm Tue 8 Jul 14

paraboy says...

should do away with housing officers wast of time and money they never do anything just past it on to over people so they are a waste of time big save there
should do away with housing officers wast of time and money they never do anything just past it on to over people so they are a waste of time big save there paraboy
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away.
.
How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... .
.
The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ...
.
Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme
Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart?

My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it!

If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income.

Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it.

We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down.
"Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart?"

One piece at a time.

I have no doubt that what the Labour Council say in public is different to what they think - and before you make claims of their duplicity and not being truthful, I will explain why.

If they loudly proclaimed that it was a total failure and a complete waste of money, that is going to be a millstone around the city's finances for years to come, how many extra visitors do you think that would bring to the museum>

With regard the claim that they have done nothing to promote it and are just sitting back to watch it fall apart, I assume that you are aware that the City's income has been drastically reduced. Who do you think is keeping the museum open, even though it is not attracting enough visitors to cover the running costs?

The current administration are saddled with the cost of running something that they were against when they were in opposition, and forecasting the problems that such a project would face. Now they are faced with dealing with the problems that they were foresaw, and that could have been avoided if the previous administration had listened to their warnings.

It is easy to criticise the council and claim that it is not promoting the museum, but how would you promote it? How would you 'sell a white elephant' to the general public?
I have not criticised the current Council, I simply asked would it be fair to say.

My point is the building is there, unless you'd rather we just knock it down and lose jobs.

I'll ask again, what have Labour done since they have been in control to drive money to the City?

We both have to admit, this Administration has been a shambles from the word go and that's not because i'm anti-labour. It's a matter of fact that the leader had to step down, they lost councillors etc.

It's just a sham, the whole thing!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: The local Tories ripped the finances out of this City with the Sea Museum using taxpayers money to the tune of £10m ...... and what for ..... apart from an ego trip ...... the money was tipped away. . How on earth people can defend the local Tories for the mess that they left this City in is absolutely beyond me ...... . . The Tories both Locally and Nationally have done absolutely NOTHING but rip the guts out of this City and many others around the Country ... . Only a fool would ever defend or support such a reginme[/p][/quote]Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart? My point being it's been built, we can't change that. As a City we should be promoting it, not slating it! If you loved your City as much as you portray you'd been singing it's praises to encourage more to visit it and therefore bring in more income. Instead, you've written it off from the start and just been negative toward it. We all need to do our bit to encourage what we have to grow not slate it down.[/p][/quote]"Would it be fair to say the current Labour Council feel the same way as you do regarding the Museum and have done nothing to promote it and just sit back and watch it fall apart?" One piece at a time. I have no doubt that what the Labour Council say in public is different to what they think - and before you make claims of their duplicity and not being truthful, I will explain why. If they loudly proclaimed that it was a total failure and a complete waste of money, that is going to be a millstone around the city's finances for years to come, how many extra visitors do you think that would bring to the museum> With regard the claim that they have done nothing to promote it and are just sitting back to watch it fall apart, I assume that you are aware that the City's income has been drastically reduced. Who do you think is keeping the museum open, even though it is not attracting enough visitors to cover the running costs? The current administration are saddled with the cost of running something that they were against when they were in opposition, and forecasting the problems that such a project would face. Now they are faced with dealing with the problems that they were foresaw, and that could have been avoided if the previous administration had listened to their warnings. It is easy to criticise the council and claim that it is not promoting the museum, but how would you promote it? How would you 'sell a white elephant' to the general public?[/p][/quote]I have not criticised the current Council, I simply asked would it be fair to say. My point is the building is there, unless you'd rather we just knock it down and lose jobs. I'll ask again, what have Labour done since they have been in control to drive money to the City? We both have to admit, this Administration has been a shambles from the word go and that's not because i'm anti-labour. It's a matter of fact that the leader had to step down, they lost councillors etc. It's just a sham, the whole thing! IronLady2010
  • Score: 1

4:29pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs.

Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget.

We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay.

We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job.

This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x
Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes.

Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped.

I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.
He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it.

Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid.

Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City.

All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.
Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions.

It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk.

He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come.

IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.
WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests.

When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.[/p][/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs. Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget. We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay. We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job. This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x[/p][/quote]Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes. Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped. I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.[/p][/quote]He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it. Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid. Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City. All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.[/p][/quote]Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions. It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk. He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come. IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.[/p][/quote]WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests. When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating. IronLady2010
  • Score: 2

4:55pm Tue 8 Jul 14

190385saints says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.
Grow a pair
Raise a city wide campaign against cuts - this wud be hugely popular. And then get our money back from central government. The debt is not ours its the bankers.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.[/p][/quote]Grow a pair Raise a city wide campaign against cuts - this wud be hugely popular. And then get our money back from central government. The debt is not ours its the bankers. 190385saints
  • Score: 1

4:57pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

190385saints wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.
Grow a pair
Raise a city wide campaign against cuts - this wud be hugely popular. And then get our money back from central government. The debt is not ours its the bankers.
Actually the Debt is ours, we elected a Government to look out for us. Labour failed and we'll pay the price for a few more years yet.
[quote][p][bold]190385saints[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.[/p][/quote]Grow a pair Raise a city wide campaign against cuts - this wud be hugely popular. And then get our money back from central government. The debt is not ours its the bankers.[/p][/quote]Actually the Debt is ours, we elected a Government to look out for us. Labour failed and we'll pay the price for a few more years yet. IronLady2010
  • Score: 2

5:01pm Tue 8 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Iron Lady you are spot on.
Iron Lady you are spot on. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -3

5:03pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City?

What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control?

That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council?
You are no more a swing voter than i am ...... You have your mind made up which is plain to see.
.
Why do not "interagate" the Tory posters ?
.
Is it because you prefer to sgree with them rather than others ....
.
May i sak you ..... what did the Tories have in place to ensure the future of the City.
.
What were the Tories going to do had they won the election ....... I saw their "Summary of Efficiencies" document in 2011 highlighting the cuts they were going to make ...... and yet when challenged on this forum one of the posters ( now a Cllr ) denied it all .......
.
As i say you are no more an undecided voter than i am ...... as your other posts suggest
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City? What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control? That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council?[/p][/quote]You are no more a swing voter than i am ...... You have your mind made up which is plain to see. . Why do not "interagate" the Tory posters ? . Is it because you prefer to sgree with them rather than others .... . May i sak you ..... what did the Tories have in place to ensure the future of the City. . What were the Tories going to do had they won the election ....... I saw their "Summary of Efficiencies" document in 2011 highlighting the cuts they were going to make ...... and yet when challenged on this forum one of the posters ( now a Cllr ) denied it all ....... . As i say you are no more an undecided voter than i am ...... as your other posts suggest Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

5:11pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Revolution802 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City?

What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control?

That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council?
You are no more a swing voter than i am ...... You have your mind made up which is plain to see.
.
Why do not "interagate" the Tory posters ?
.
Is it because you prefer to sgree with them rather than others ....
.
May i sak you ..... what did the Tories have in place to ensure the future of the City.
.
What were the Tories going to do had they won the election ....... I saw their "Summary of Efficiencies" document in 2011 highlighting the cuts they were going to make ...... and yet when challenged on this forum one of the posters ( now a Cllr ) denied it all .......
.
As i say you are no more an undecided voter than i am ...... as your other posts suggest
Wow, the IronLady2010 really is living up to the name. I'm looking forward to see how Carter gets on starting up his own party, hopefully he will sort this City.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City? What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control? That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council?[/p][/quote]You are no more a swing voter than i am ...... You have your mind made up which is plain to see. . Why do not "interagate" the Tory posters ? . Is it because you prefer to sgree with them rather than others .... . May i sak you ..... what did the Tories have in place to ensure the future of the City. . What were the Tories going to do had they won the election ....... I saw their "Summary of Efficiencies" document in 2011 highlighting the cuts they were going to make ...... and yet when challenged on this forum one of the posters ( now a Cllr ) denied it all ....... . As i say you are no more an undecided voter than i am ...... as your other posts suggest[/p][/quote]Wow, the IronLady2010 really is living up to the name. I'm looking forward to see how Carter gets on starting up his own party, hopefully he will sort this City. Revolution802
  • Score: -2

5:11pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City?

What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control?

That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council?
You are no more a swing voter than i am ...... You have your mind made up which is plain to see.
.
Why do not "interagate" the Tory posters ?
.
Is it because you prefer to sgree with them rather than others ....
.
May i sak you ..... what did the Tories have in place to ensure the future of the City.
.
What were the Tories going to do had they won the election ....... I saw their "Summary of Efficiencies" document in 2011 highlighting the cuts they were going to make ...... and yet when challenged on this forum one of the posters ( now a Cllr ) denied it all .......
.
As i say you are no more an undecided voter than i am ...... as your other posts suggest
I have made my mind up? How do you know that?

If Milliband was to be gone and Labour made some decisions that could help this Country I may well swing towards them.

You are so blinded by your own ignorance.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City? What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control? That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council?[/p][/quote]You are no more a swing voter than i am ...... You have your mind made up which is plain to see. . Why do not "interagate" the Tory posters ? . Is it because you prefer to sgree with them rather than others .... . May i sak you ..... what did the Tories have in place to ensure the future of the City. . What were the Tories going to do had they won the election ....... I saw their "Summary of Efficiencies" document in 2011 highlighting the cuts they were going to make ...... and yet when challenged on this forum one of the posters ( now a Cllr ) denied it all ....... . As i say you are no more an undecided voter than i am ...... as your other posts suggest[/p][/quote]I have made my mind up? How do you know that? If Milliband was to be gone and Labour made some decisions that could help this Country I may well swing towards them. You are so blinded by your own ignorance. IronLady2010
  • Score: 4

5:17pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Can I just add. It's great we can have this discussion without being abusive to each other.

We all share differing opinions. ****
Can I just add. It's great we can have this discussion without being abusive to each other. We all share differing opinions. **** IronLady2010
  • Score: 3

5:18pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City?

What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control?

That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council?
You are no more a swing voter than i am ...... You have your mind made up which is plain to see.
.
Why do not "interagate" the Tory posters ?
.
Is it because you prefer to sgree with them rather than others ....
.
May i sak you ..... what did the Tories have in place to ensure the future of the City.
.
What were the Tories going to do had they won the election ....... I saw their "Summary of Efficiencies" document in 2011 highlighting the cuts they were going to make ...... and yet when challenged on this forum one of the posters ( now a Cllr ) denied it all .......
.
As i say you are no more an undecided voter than i am ...... as your other posts suggest
I have made my mind up? How do you know that?

If Milliband was to be gone and Labour made some decisions that could help this Country I may well swing towards them.

You are so blinded by your own ignorance.
What a pity that you just decided to pick on that bit of my post ...... and didnt venture any further ........
.
Blinded by my own ignorance !!! ......... I dont think so ...... its just that you cant handle a little bit of the truth ........ perhaps your blinded by your arrogance ..... or an inability to recognise yourself......... and not liking it when its pointed out
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: May I ask you Lone Ranger, what have the current Council got in place to ensure the future of the City? What have they got in place to fill the Money gap in the budget which they knew about before taking control? That's why I'm a swing voter. I'm not saying I agree with Royston's decisions all the time, but to be fair we saw more changes than under this current Council?[/p][/quote]You are no more a swing voter than i am ...... You have your mind made up which is plain to see. . Why do not "interagate" the Tory posters ? . Is it because you prefer to sgree with them rather than others .... . May i sak you ..... what did the Tories have in place to ensure the future of the City. . What were the Tories going to do had they won the election ....... I saw their "Summary of Efficiencies" document in 2011 highlighting the cuts they were going to make ...... and yet when challenged on this forum one of the posters ( now a Cllr ) denied it all ....... . As i say you are no more an undecided voter than i am ...... as your other posts suggest[/p][/quote]I have made my mind up? How do you know that? If Milliband was to be gone and Labour made some decisions that could help this Country I may well swing towards them. You are so blinded by your own ignorance.[/p][/quote]What a pity that you just decided to pick on that bit of my post ...... and didnt venture any further ........ . Blinded by my own ignorance !!! ......... I dont think so ...... its just that you cant handle a little bit of the truth ........ perhaps your blinded by your arrogance ..... or an inability to recognise yourself......... and not liking it when its pointed out Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -4

5:19pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Can I just add. It's great we can have this discussion without being abusive to each other.

We all share differing opinions. ****
So ..... QUOTE:- "You are so blinded by your own ignorance". ........ Is not abusive then ??
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Can I just add. It's great we can have this discussion without being abusive to each other. We all share differing opinions. ****[/p][/quote]So ..... QUOTE:- "You are so blinded by your own ignorance". ........ Is not abusive then ?? Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -5

5:19pm Tue 8 Jul 14

BeyondImagination says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government," which were an inevitable result of the incompetence of the economically illiterate Brown
Tories just doing what Tories always do -CUT, CUT, CUT. They then blame Brown for the world wide banking crisis and global recession. Tories want central control by cutting council grants for councils to spend as they choose, then giving grants, usually announced several times to spend on Tory pet projects they hope will make them look good at the election.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government," which were an inevitable result of the incompetence of the economically illiterate Brown[/p][/quote]Tories just doing what Tories always do -CUT, CUT, CUT. They then blame Brown for the world wide banking crisis and global recession. Tories want central control by cutting council grants for councils to spend as they choose, then giving grants, usually announced several times to spend on Tory pet projects they hope will make them look good at the election. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 2

5:19pm Tue 8 Jul 14

BeyondImagination says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government," which were an inevitable result of the incompetence of the economically illiterate Brown
Tories just doing what Tories always do -CUT, CUT, CUT. They then blame Brown for the world wide banking crisis and global recession. Tories want central control by cutting council grants for councils to spend as they choose, then giving grants, usually announced several times to spend on Tory pet projects they hope will make them look good at the election.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government," which were an inevitable result of the incompetence of the economically illiterate Brown[/p][/quote]Tories just doing what Tories always do -CUT, CUT, CUT. They then blame Brown for the world wide banking crisis and global recession. Tories want central control by cutting council grants for councils to spend as they choose, then giving grants, usually announced several times to spend on Tory pet projects they hope will make them look good at the election. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Can I just add. It's great we can have this discussion without being abusive to each other.

We all share differing opinions. ****
So ..... QUOTE:- "You are so blinded by your own ignorance". ........ Is not abusive then ??
If you find that abusive, you need to step outside into the real world my friend.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Can I just add. It's great we can have this discussion without being abusive to each other. We all share differing opinions. ****[/p][/quote]So ..... QUOTE:- "You are so blinded by your own ignorance". ........ Is not abusive then ??[/p][/quote]If you find that abusive, you need to step outside into the real world my friend. IronLady2010
  • Score: 3

5:22pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Rockhopper says...

northamboyofold wrote:
southy wrote:
townieboy wrote:
Have they sacked all the gardeners already ?? around my place its like a jungle with everything overgrown.......joke



.
Most have gone all ready, those few that are left have to do street cleaning also as well as do the gardening, they been cut back that much the system no longer works and this dept is being getting ready to be handed over to the private sector to run, which in the end will end up costing more, it will be enviable that the Council tax which is going to be replace soon with an area tax that the LEP will control and dictate on rates will be tripled
What street cleaning, I have not seen a road sweeper man or mechanical around here for ages, but what I have seen is a lot of council vehicles that are taken home by workers ( That's a benefit in kind and is taxable does it get declared??). And at times they are outside of there houses during the day when perhaps they should be working, if they are on holiday they should be left at the yard.
Agree, SCC vehicles also seen outside the Southampton boundary area at weekends/evenings.
Mr Letts do the Council fit trackers to their vehicles like most companies and is the mileage is audited?
[quote][p][bold]northamboyofold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote: Have they sacked all the gardeners already ?? around my place its like a jungle with everything overgrown.......joke .[/p][/quote]Most have gone all ready, those few that are left have to do street cleaning also as well as do the gardening, they been cut back that much the system no longer works and this dept is being getting ready to be handed over to the private sector to run, which in the end will end up costing more, it will be enviable that the Council tax which is going to be replace soon with an area tax that the LEP will control and dictate on rates will be tripled[/p][/quote]What street cleaning, I have not seen a road sweeper man or mechanical around here for ages, but what I have seen is a lot of council vehicles that are taken home by workers ( That's a benefit in kind and is taxable does it get declared??). And at times they are outside of there houses during the day when perhaps they should be working, if they are on holiday they should be left at the yard.[/p][/quote]Agree, SCC vehicles also seen outside the Southampton boundary area at weekends/evenings. Mr Letts do the Council fit trackers to their vehicles like most companies and is the mileage is audited? Rockhopper
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs.

Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget.

We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay.

We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job.

This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x
Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes.

Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped.

I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.
He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it.

Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid.

Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City.

All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.
Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions.

It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk.

He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come.

IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.
WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests.

When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating.
"WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their REQUESTS."

Your word. 'REQUESTS'!

Not DEMANDS, but REQUESTS.

"Would not back down."

In other words, he went in with pre-set ideas, with no thought of compromise. Compromise is something that you must be prepared to do when you are Negotiating, and as I have previously stated, HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE.

You have just confirmed that with your own words.

I am glad that, after a protracted conversation, we can at last agree.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.[/p][/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs. Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget. We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay. We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job. This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x[/p][/quote]Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes. Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped. I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.[/p][/quote]He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it. Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid. Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City. All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.[/p][/quote]Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions. It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk. He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come. IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.[/p][/quote]WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests. When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating.[/p][/quote]"WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their REQUESTS." Your word. 'REQUESTS'! Not DEMANDS, but REQUESTS. "Would not back down." In other words, he went in with pre-set ideas, with no thought of compromise. Compromise is something that you must be prepared to do when you are Negotiating, and as I have previously stated, HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE. You have just confirmed that with your own words. I am glad that, after a protracted conversation, we can at last agree. Linesman
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Tue 8 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs.

Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget.

We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay.

We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job.

This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x
Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes.

Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped.

I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.
He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it.

Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid.

Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City.

All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.
Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions.

It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk.

He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come.

IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.
WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests.

When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating.
"WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their REQUESTS."

Your word. 'REQUESTS'!

Not DEMANDS, but REQUESTS.

"Would not back down."

In other words, he went in with pre-set ideas, with no thought of compromise. Compromise is something that you must be prepared to do when you are Negotiating, and as I have previously stated, HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE.

You have just confirmed that with your own words.

I am glad that, after a protracted conversation, we can at last agree.
WRONG AGAIN,

I'm not standing up for Royston in any way.

You have to accept the Unions said NO CUTS whatsoever. Royston made was it 2 or 3 proposals and the Unions brushed them off simply saying NO CUTS.

I'm going to step out of this now as I see no point in discussing with someone who is so blinkered. I'll hold my head high and say I can see all sides.

Have a nice evening.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.[/p][/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs. Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget. We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay. We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job. This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x[/p][/quote]Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes. Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped. I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.[/p][/quote]He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it. Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid. Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City. All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.[/p][/quote]Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions. It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk. He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come. IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.[/p][/quote]WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests. When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating.[/p][/quote]"WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their REQUESTS." Your word. 'REQUESTS'! Not DEMANDS, but REQUESTS. "Would not back down." In other words, he went in with pre-set ideas, with no thought of compromise. Compromise is something that you must be prepared to do when you are Negotiating, and as I have previously stated, HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE. You have just confirmed that with your own words. I am glad that, after a protracted conversation, we can at last agree.[/p][/quote]WRONG AGAIN, I'm not standing up for Royston in any way. You have to accept the Unions said NO CUTS whatsoever. Royston made was it 2 or 3 proposals and the Unions brushed them off simply saying NO CUTS. I'm going to step out of this now as I see no point in discussing with someone who is so blinkered. I'll hold my head high and say I can see all sides. Have a nice evening. IronLady2010
  • Score: 3

6:18pm Tue 8 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Okay! Talked to a refuse collector this morning I asked why when our blue & green bins were suppose to be emptied on the same day they aren't .
His reply was the changing of route sizes & dates of collections has been totally c++ed up & they were better off under a Tory council.
Now yes I don't know his name & yes I can't prove he said it but if you look at the mess with bin collections with roads dug up & fenced off with no work for at least a week you can see for yourself what a total mess of it Labour are making.
Some bright sparks say put council tax up? they have for pay rises but isn't it Labour who keeps on about cost of living? so how's raising council tax going to help peoples cost of living?
Seeing as many Refuse workers were on below £22,000 & only drivers & a few others were above it I'd say most were above £22,000.
Take the money that's been used to restore the pay ? come on how much was it?
Far,Far greater than the debt of Sea City Museum.
With the museum things can be done to get rid of the debt but with the pay all you can now do is cut wages or jobs so who had the better idea?
Royston who actually took on more permanent refuse workers & saved jobs in the permanent work force or Labour who'd rather cut hundreds of permanent job & services?
Exactly ow many permanent jobs have been lost already?
Please Daily Echo please release the article by Williams before Labour won control as the people need to see the truth about the Labour Council.
Okay! Talked to a refuse collector this morning I asked why when our blue & green bins were suppose to be emptied on the same day they aren't . His reply was the changing of route sizes & dates of collections has been totally c++ed up & they were better off under a Tory council. Now yes I don't know his name & yes I can't prove he said it but if you look at the mess with bin collections with roads dug up & fenced off with no work for at least a week you can see for yourself what a total mess of it Labour are making. Some bright sparks say put council tax up? they have for pay rises but isn't it Labour who keeps on about cost of living? so how's raising council tax going to help peoples cost of living? Seeing as many Refuse workers were on below £22,000 & only drivers & a few others were above it I'd say most were above £22,000. Take the money that's been used to restore the pay ? come on how much was it? Far,Far greater than the debt of Sea City Museum. With the museum things can be done to get rid of the debt but with the pay all you can now do is cut wages or jobs so who had the better idea? Royston who actually took on more permanent refuse workers & saved jobs in the permanent work force or Labour who'd rather cut hundreds of permanent job & services? Exactly ow many permanent jobs have been lost already? Please Daily Echo please release the article by Williams before Labour won control as the people need to see the truth about the Labour Council. loosehead
  • Score: -5

6:22pm Tue 8 Jul 14

mr.southampton says...

Miguel Raton wrote:
Axe all the non jobs and pay market rates for employees that are actually required and expenditure on front line services could actually be increased while making reductions in council tax.

Is anyone surprised that a council has more than 83 people in 'HR'?
You have very little experience of local government if you think there are still any 'non-jobs' it's been bare-bones for years.

As for 83 people in HR the article says

"And while each council department currently has its own business support team which helps with human resources and personnel issues, they will be cut to a single team,"

Business Support basically means admin in SCC parlance so it covers a huge range of tasks as well as HR and personnel issues.
[quote][p][bold]Miguel Raton[/bold] wrote: Axe all the non jobs and pay market rates for employees that are actually required and expenditure on front line services could actually be increased while making reductions in council tax. Is anyone surprised that a council has more than 83 people in 'HR'?[/p][/quote]You have very little experience of local government if you think there are still any 'non-jobs' it's been bare-bones for years. As for 83 people in HR the article says "And while each council department currently has its own business support team which helps with human resources and personnel issues, they will be cut to a single team," Business Support basically means admin in SCC parlance so it covers a huge range of tasks as well as HR and personnel issues. mr.southampton
  • Score: -1

6:27pm Tue 8 Jul 14

loosehead says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs.

Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget.

We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay.

We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job.

This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x
Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes.

Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped.

I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.
He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it.

Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid.

Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City.

All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.
Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions.

It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk.

He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come.

IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.
WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests.

When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating.
"WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their REQUESTS."

Your word. 'REQUESTS'!

Not DEMANDS, but REQUESTS.

"Would not back down."

In other words, he went in with pre-set ideas, with no thought of compromise. Compromise is something that you must be prepared to do when you are Negotiating, and as I have previously stated, HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE.

You have just confirmed that with your own words.

I am glad that, after a protracted conversation, we can at last agree.
WRONG AGAIN,

I'm not standing up for Royston in any way.

You have to accept the Unions said NO CUTS whatsoever. Royston made was it 2 or 3 proposals and the Unions brushed them off simply saying NO CUTS.

I'm going to step out of this now as I see no point in discussing with someone who is so blinkered. I'll hold my head high and say I can see all sides.

Have a nice evening.
Ironlady you must have realised by the attacks on my posts that you will always be wrong or a liar when trying to debate with a few on here?
You are right & after all the ideas put forward by the Tory council they asked the unions what ideas they had & they said It's not our job it's your's but try getting the money from the banks?
I wonder if this latest round of job cuts is enough to bring about Industrial action or doesn't job losses matter to the Unions as long as it's Labour cutting the jobs & services?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.[/p][/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs. Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget. We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay. We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job. This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x[/p][/quote]Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes. Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped. I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.[/p][/quote]He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it. Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid. Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City. All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.[/p][/quote]Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions. It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk. He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come. IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.[/p][/quote]WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests. When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating.[/p][/quote]"WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their REQUESTS." Your word. 'REQUESTS'! Not DEMANDS, but REQUESTS. "Would not back down." In other words, he went in with pre-set ideas, with no thought of compromise. Compromise is something that you must be prepared to do when you are Negotiating, and as I have previously stated, HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE. You have just confirmed that with your own words. I am glad that, after a protracted conversation, we can at last agree.[/p][/quote]WRONG AGAIN, I'm not standing up for Royston in any way. You have to accept the Unions said NO CUTS whatsoever. Royston made was it 2 or 3 proposals and the Unions brushed them off simply saying NO CUTS. I'm going to step out of this now as I see no point in discussing with someone who is so blinkered. I'll hold my head high and say I can see all sides. Have a nice evening.[/p][/quote]Ironlady you must have realised by the attacks on my posts that you will always be wrong or a liar when trying to debate with a few on here? You are right & after all the ideas put forward by the Tory council they asked the unions what ideas they had & they said It's not our job it's your's but try getting the money from the banks? I wonder if this latest round of job cuts is enough to bring about Industrial action or doesn't job losses matter to the Unions as long as it's Labour cutting the jobs & services? loosehead
  • Score: -3

6:36pm Tue 8 Jul 14

*ay*carumba* says...

"And while each council department currently has its own business support team which helps with human resources and personnel issues, they will be cut to a single team, saving £800,000 a year but costing 83 jobs."

This is wrong. Business Support is not HR and Personnel, Business Support are the bottom rung of the ladder that do the real work. 56 fte posts are going out of 297 fte posts, 27 vacant posts are not going to be filled.
"And while each council department currently has its own business support team which helps with human resources and personnel issues, they will be cut to a single team, saving £800,000 a year but costing 83 jobs." This is wrong. Business Support is not HR and Personnel, Business Support are the bottom rung of the ladder that do the real work. 56 fte posts are going out of 297 fte posts, 27 vacant posts are not going to be filled. *ay*carumba*
  • Score: -1

7:25pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Can I just add. It's great we can have this discussion without being abusive to each other.

We all share differing opinions. ****
So ..... QUOTE:- "You are so blinded by your own ignorance". ........ Is not abusive then ??
If you find that abusive, you need to step outside into the real world my friend.
I think that i am well and truly in it ....... but i do feel that you have a bit of trouble accepting it though
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Can I just add. It's great we can have this discussion without being abusive to each other. We all share differing opinions. ****[/p][/quote]So ..... QUOTE:- "You are so blinded by your own ignorance". ........ Is not abusive then ??[/p][/quote]If you find that abusive, you need to step outside into the real world my friend.[/p][/quote]I think that i am well and truly in it ....... but i do feel that you have a bit of trouble accepting it though Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

8:05pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later.
We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services,
Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen.
They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise.
now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages?
Now they're announcing more job cuts?
Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000?
look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.
"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in."

I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in.

The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections.

Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.
Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs.

Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget.

We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay.

We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job.

This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x
Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes.

Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped.

I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.
He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it.

Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid.

Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City.

All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.
Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions.

It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk.

He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come.

IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.
WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests.

When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating.
"WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their REQUESTS."

Your word. 'REQUESTS'!

Not DEMANDS, but REQUESTS.

"Would not back down."

In other words, he went in with pre-set ideas, with no thought of compromise. Compromise is something that you must be prepared to do when you are Negotiating, and as I have previously stated, HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE.

You have just confirmed that with your own words.

I am glad that, after a protracted conversation, we can at last agree.
WRONG AGAIN,

I'm not standing up for Royston in any way.

You have to accept the Unions said NO CUTS whatsoever. Royston made was it 2 or 3 proposals and the Unions brushed them off simply saying NO CUTS.

I'm going to step out of this now as I see no point in discussing with someone who is so blinkered. I'll hold my head high and say I can see all sides.

Have a nice evening.
What you have to accept is that the Unions reacted to the fact that Royston Smith would NOT negotiate.

As you clearly stated, he met with the Unions and was not prepared to compromise.
That is not negotiating

If an employer will not conduct MEANINGFUL negotiations, then the Union representatives have no option but to report back to their membership and advise them of various options of action that they can take,

The membership voted for strike action, and that is what happened.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When Labour took control Williams had already let slip the amount of jobs to be cut & services to be cut only to deny it later. We had a Labour Party saying (lying) they could restore pay increase council tax by 1.9% each year & no cuts to jobs or services, Straight away they then announced if the grant applied for by the Tories weren't forthcoming 1-10 refuse jobs were to go & fortnightly bin collections would happen. They then went about cutting jobs & services to restore council staff pay even though this city couldn't afford it in the beginning they also created two more cabinet posts so giving two more councillors a pay rise. now Council workers above £22,000 going up to £60,000 have had their pay restored the Labour council announce the council tax rise won't be for services NO it will be for a yearly increase of wages? Now they're announcing more job cuts? Surely they must have known there were cuts coming? surely they should have saved jobs used our council tax to save services not restored pay to those over £30,000? look at the mis-management of the cities finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in.[/p][/quote]"Look at the mis-management of the cities (city's) finances since Labour took control & think hard about voting a Labour Government in." I suggest that voters look at the mismanagement of the city's BEFORE Labour took control & think hard about voting a Tory Government in. The current Labour administration are having to clear up the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind. The mess that the city's voters remembered when they cast their votes at the last Council elections. Not only does the current Labour administration have to deal with the financial mess that Royston Smith and his cohorts left behind, they have to contend with the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government, and the restrictions that they have placed on councils to raise money to ensure services and jobs are maintained.[/p][/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. My reasons being that Royston proposed some pay cuts in order to protect some jobs. Labour re-instated the pay as that's what they promised to get elected, now they are going to have to cut more jobs than necessary to fit the budget. We all have differing opinions and i'm not saying i'm right in what I say, but I do feel Labour have lost the trust of Union members as more and more of them will lose jobs when they could have simply had a slight change in pay. We can't deny the fact these budget cuts will take place and if only some of those cuts were shared between the workforce then more people would keep their job. This isn't an arguement, it's just my opinion. x[/p][/quote]Royston did not 'propose' some pay cuts, he attempted to implement them Without Negotiation. There was a negotiating body in place, but he chose not to use it, which caused the strikes. Jobs will be lost. That is an unfortunate result of having the government grant cut and any possible increase in council tax being capped. I am sure that you are well aware that, if your income does not even keep pace with inflation, then cuts have to be made. That is even more true when your income is reduced, and that is what has happened to Southampton City Council, and every other local council.[/p][/quote]He did negotiate, but the Unions decided they wanted no pay cuts and refused to discuss it. Now, we have a Labour Council doing exactly what Royston was trying to avoid. Take your Labour hat off for a minute and try and be neutral. Maybe then you'll see it from a Tax payers point of view who live local and want a great City. All these headlines about cuts, where are the Unions now, I can't hear them kicking off, it was all a set up as the Unions are in Labours pocket and that's why I may swing with my vote but would never vote Labour.[/p][/quote]Initially he did NOT negotiate with the Unions. It was not until they took strike action, and threatened legal action that he was prepared to talk. He took a tough stance, assuming that Westminster would back him up, but that support did not come. IF (R) IF he had been prepared to negotiate from the start, it is just possible that he would still be Leader of the Council. As it is, the electorate did not see it as a case of the Unions being the cause of all the trouble, but placed the blame on the Royston Smith administration, and made that plain at the recent council elections.[/p][/quote]WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their requests. When you negotiate, it takes two sides. The Unions just said no cuts full stop, that's not negotiating that is dictating.[/p][/quote]"WRONG, he went into several meetings with the Unions, but wouldn't back down to their REQUESTS." Your word. 'REQUESTS'! Not DEMANDS, but REQUESTS. "Would not back down." In other words, he went in with pre-set ideas, with no thought of compromise. Compromise is something that you must be prepared to do when you are Negotiating, and as I have previously stated, HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE. You have just confirmed that with your own words. I am glad that, after a protracted conversation, we can at last agree.[/p][/quote]WRONG AGAIN, I'm not standing up for Royston in any way. You have to accept the Unions said NO CUTS whatsoever. Royston made was it 2 or 3 proposals and the Unions brushed them off simply saying NO CUTS. I'm going to step out of this now as I see no point in discussing with someone who is so blinkered. I'll hold my head high and say I can see all sides. Have a nice evening.[/p][/quote]What you have to accept is that the Unions reacted to the fact that Royston Smith would NOT negotiate. As you clearly stated, he met with the Unions and was not prepared to compromise. That is not negotiating If an employer will not conduct MEANINGFUL negotiations, then the Union representatives have no option but to report back to their membership and advise them of various options of action that they can take, The membership voted for strike action, and that is what happened. Linesman
  • Score: 2

8:27pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Kirsty666 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Kirsty666 wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.
Why should we pay more council tax when they're on high enough wages and get expenses paid on top?
Thats interesting .... what are their wages then?
Go for a job at the council and look at their wages PA also look into the internal jobs wages are even higher
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kirsty666[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Grow a pair, hold a referendum and put up council tax. If the only way to provide decent services is to pay a bit more then so be it.[/p][/quote]Why should we pay more council tax when they're on high enough wages and get expenses paid on top?[/p][/quote]Thats interesting .... what are their wages then?[/p][/quote]Go for a job at the council and look at their wages PA also look into the internal jobs wages are even higher Kirsty666
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Kirsty666 says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Excellent points from Big Fella 777, Loosehead, Sotonboy 84, Miguel Raton, Mintybee ( please stay in Southampton and vote Tory and see the difference), Dai Rear, Saint 61, Southamptongeordie and Kirsty 666.

Efficiency is the only way to improve costs and standards of living, you never near Labour saying we the council will become more efficient.
They pay themselves more and deliver less, vote Tory for a better council in 2015.
They're all a bunch of money grabbing sods that don't have peoples interests at heart I've lived through the Thatcher years which were dire and labour weren't much better id like to see a new party in power and see what happens
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Excellent points from Big Fella 777, Loosehead, Sotonboy 84, Miguel Raton, Mintybee ( please stay in Southampton and vote Tory and see the difference), Dai Rear, Saint 61, Southamptongeordie and Kirsty 666. Efficiency is the only way to improve costs and standards of living, you never near Labour saying we the council will become more efficient. They pay themselves more and deliver less, vote Tory for a better council in 2015.[/p][/quote]They're all a bunch of money grabbing sods that don't have peoples interests at heart I've lived through the Thatcher years which were dire and labour weren't much better id like to see a new party in power and see what happens Kirsty666
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Tue 8 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Again Labour Party members saying Royston wouldn't negotiate? 5 separate proposals with 5 amendments would the Unions negotiate? NO what was it they said? Hit the banks? a local council hitting the banks?
These Labour Party members & supporters also fail to mention that at ACAS the Unions went in with conditions & refused to negotiate until they were met so ACAS was a waste of time.
It was only until Williams let it be known what Labours plans were did the Unions negotiate & the Tories yet again came up with another proposal with the 2% cuts going up to 5% starting at wages over £22,000.
both unions agreed to it & said they'd put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & break the deal immediately so who failed to negotiate? who had the workers & the people of this city's best interests at heart?
Unions that accepted a deal but broke it or a council that negotiated in good faith for the best for all?
Were those workers told that Williams outburst about the amount of job losses & services cut were indeed true?
Why would the Tories put in for a grant to secure jobs & weekly collections if they were anti worker?
Labour has finally proven how wrong it was for the voters to elect them.
The Unions as far as I know are suppose to fight to protect jobs are they going to?
Again Labour Party members saying Royston wouldn't negotiate? 5 separate proposals with 5 amendments would the Unions negotiate? NO what was it they said? Hit the banks? a local council hitting the banks? These Labour Party members & supporters also fail to mention that at ACAS the Unions went in with conditions & refused to negotiate until they were met so ACAS was a waste of time. It was only until Williams let it be known what Labours plans were did the Unions negotiate & the Tories yet again came up with another proposal with the 2% cuts going up to 5% starting at wages over £22,000. both unions agreed to it & said they'd put it to their members only for Unite to walk away & break the deal immediately so who failed to negotiate? who had the workers & the people of this city's best interests at heart? Unions that accepted a deal but broke it or a council that negotiated in good faith for the best for all? Were those workers told that Williams outburst about the amount of job losses & services cut were indeed true? Why would the Tories put in for a grant to secure jobs & weekly collections if they were anti worker? Labour has finally proven how wrong it was for the voters to elect them. The Unions as far as I know are suppose to fight to protect jobs are they going to? loosehead
  • Score: -2

9:19pm Tue 8 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Vote Labour we'll look after the managers who never sent out the letters the managers who never passed on details of the Tory deal.
The high earners who never went on strike but let's get rid of what is it now? 400+ jobs & how many services?
But don't worry the high earners are getting 1.9% pay rise .
Vote Labour we'll look after the managers who never sent out the letters the managers who never passed on details of the Tory deal. The high earners who never went on strike but let's get rid of what is it now? 400+ jobs & how many services? But don't worry the high earners are getting 1.9% pay rise . loosehead
  • Score: -2

11:58pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Solent Soul says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib
utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.[/p][/quote]Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly! Solent Soul
  • Score: 1

5:23am Wed 9 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib

utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly!
i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.
[quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.[/p][/quote]Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly![/p][/quote]i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space. loosehead
  • Score: 2

6:14am Wed 9 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -2

7:41am Wed 9 Jul 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points."

Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees.

Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu.

Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts.

For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership.

If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike.

The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action.

DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points." Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees. Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu. Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts. For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership. If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike. The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action. DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Linesman
  • Score: 2

8:04am Wed 9 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points."

Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees.

Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu.

Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts.

For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership.

If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike.

The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action.

DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
Linesman ..... as usual 100% correct .......
.
Not only did the residents of this City vote for Labour two years ago to oust the Tories ....... but they did it again two months ago to ensure that the Tories did not return ....
.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points." Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees. Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu. Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts. For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership. If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike. The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action. DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.[/p][/quote]Linesman ..... as usual 100% correct ....... . Not only did the residents of this City vote for Labour two years ago to oust the Tories ....... but they did it again two months ago to ensure that the Tories did not return .... . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

8:37am Wed 9 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc).

If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now?

Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace.

We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.
Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc). If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now? Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace. We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 1

9:02am Wed 9 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc).

If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now?

Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace.

We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.
I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... .
.
I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc). If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now? Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace. We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.[/p][/quote]I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... . . I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

9:15am Wed 9 Jul 14

Maine Lobster says...

loosehead wrote:
Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib


utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly!
i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.
While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.[/p][/quote]Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly![/p][/quote]i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.[/p][/quote]While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 5

9:22am Wed 9 Jul 14

Torchie1 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc).

If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now?

Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace.

We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.
I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... .
.
I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad
Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc). If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now? Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace. We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.[/p][/quote]I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... . . I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad[/p][/quote]Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back. Torchie1
  • Score: 1

9:25am Wed 9 Jul 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?
The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages
No luck with those page numbers yet or are you going to lie low for a few days until the dust settles? Let me worry about access to the document and you do the easy bit by providing the references to back up your claims.
[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]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote]Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?[/p][/quote]The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages[/p][/quote]No luck with those page numbers yet or are you going to lie low for a few days until the dust settles? Let me worry about access to the document and you do the easy bit by providing the references to back up your claims. Torchie1
  • Score: 3

9:58am Wed 9 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders.
Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

10:14am Wed 9 Jul 14

Maine Lobster says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders.
Well you make a **** good job of trashing unions at every point and calling working people selfish etc. Union leaders are elected by their members. If their members don't want them they can put up another candidate and elect an alternative, the same as any democratic organisation.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders.[/p][/quote]Well you make a **** good job of trashing unions at every point and calling working people selfish etc. Union leaders are elected by their members. If their members don't want them they can put up another candidate and elect an alternative, the same as any democratic organisation. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 2

10:57am Wed 9 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc).

If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now?

Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace.

We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.
I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... .
.
I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad
Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back.
There is a subltel difference between not liking a Democratic Process ( like aldermoorboy) and offering criticism of a parties policies or actions .....
.
As it appears that you lack the intelligence to grasp the difference between the two, I find it quite funny that this basic knowledge eludes you ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not ....
.....
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc). If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now? Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace. We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.[/p][/quote]I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... . . I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad[/p][/quote]Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back.[/p][/quote]There is a subltel difference between not liking a Democratic Process ( like aldermoorboy) and offering criticism of a parties policies or actions ..... . As it appears that you lack the intelligence to grasp the difference between the two, I find it quite funny that this basic knowledge eludes you ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not .... ..... Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

11:06am Wed 9 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

11:20am Wed 9 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
You cant handle it aldermoor .... You have been griping on for over two years and it is getting inside your soul ...
.
As a Tory voter you are becoming desperate as you have not, on a National basis, been liked for nearly two decades ..... proven unelectable as a single party ......
.
You now look for all the excuses on a local level and blame eveyone and everything ...... apart from the people who head up you party locally and nationally .....
.
Dont worry you are not alone ... there are other bitter little posters on this site exactly the same as you ... ...
.
Get over it ...... move on ..... its interfeering with you life .... anyone who posts at 5-45am about it certainly has a problem inside .... unless you work nights ....
.
Its a lovely day out there .... go out and enjoy it ...... as they say ..... Go and Chill out
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.[/p][/quote]You cant handle it aldermoor .... You have been griping on for over two years and it is getting inside your soul ... . As a Tory voter you are becoming desperate as you have not, on a National basis, been liked for nearly two decades ..... proven unelectable as a single party ...... . You now look for all the excuses on a local level and blame eveyone and everything ...... apart from the people who head up you party locally and nationally ..... . Dont worry you are not alone ... there are other bitter little posters on this site exactly the same as you ... ... . Get over it ...... move on ..... its interfeering with you life .... anyone who posts at 5-45am about it certainly has a problem inside .... unless you work nights .... . Its a lovely day out there .... go out and enjoy it ...... as they say ..... Go and Chill out Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

11:35am Wed 9 Jul 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?
The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages
No luck with those page numbers yet or are you going to lie low for a few days until the dust settles? Let me worry about access to the document and you do the easy bit by providing the references to back up your claims.
What part do you not under stand, you can not get a full copy of the Lisbon Treaty on line, the on-line edf file shows only 306 pages of basic info, the Lisbon Treaty is over 7000 pages, the first 1000 pages go's on about what the Treaty is about and what other treatys it ties in and gives links to these treatys, it also tells you about each country in the EU and who gets the copys.
Tell you what look up page ---4760 to 4778 and tell me what those pages are about
[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]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote]Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?[/p][/quote]The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages[/p][/quote]No luck with those page numbers yet or are you going to lie low for a few days until the dust settles? Let me worry about access to the document and you do the easy bit by providing the references to back up your claims.[/p][/quote]What part do you not under stand, you can not get a full copy of the Lisbon Treaty on line, the on-line edf file shows only 306 pages of basic info, the Lisbon Treaty is over 7000 pages, the first 1000 pages go's on about what the Treaty is about and what other treatys it ties in and gives links to these treatys, it also tells you about each country in the EU and who gets the copys. Tell you what look up page ---4760 to 4778 and tell me what those pages are about southy
  • Score: 0

11:51am Wed 9 Jul 14

southy says...

Lone Ranger said to Torchie1

" ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not ...."

You noticed that also lone
Lone Ranger said to Torchie1 " ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not ...." You noticed that also lone southy
  • Score: -2

12:23pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib


utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly!
i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.
That is correct, and it makes me wonder why Royston Smith did not take advantage of this fact and take part in MEANINGFUL negotiations with them form the start, instead of choosing confrontation instead.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.[/p][/quote]Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly![/p][/quote]i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.[/p][/quote]That is correct, and it makes me wonder why Royston Smith did not take advantage of this fact and take part in MEANINGFUL negotiations with them form the start, instead of choosing confrontation instead. Linesman
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Wed 9 Jul 14

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib



utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly!
i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.
That is correct, and it makes me wonder why Royston Smith did not take advantage of this fact and take part in MEANINGFUL negotiations with them form the start, instead of choosing confrontation instead.
Loose is all most right, Union members are paid a wage to work for the city they are employed by the city to carry out there jobs what ever dept they are in, just that not all union memebers work out side, some members work in a office, and there is or was a room for talks between the city bosses and its workers, But I think Royston put that office to other uses like for his spin doctor
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.[/p][/quote]Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly![/p][/quote]i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.[/p][/quote]That is correct, and it makes me wonder why Royston Smith did not take advantage of this fact and take part in MEANINGFUL negotiations with them form the start, instead of choosing confrontation instead.[/p][/quote]Loose is all most right, Union members are paid a wage to work for the city they are employed by the city to carry out there jobs what ever dept they are in, just that not all union memebers work out side, some members work in a office, and there is or was a room for talks between the city bosses and its workers, But I think Royston put that office to other uses like for his spin doctor southy
  • Score: -1

12:59pm Wed 9 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Lone Ranger thank you for kind thoughts and advice, but I fear just like you we will both be stating our views and support for our beloved parties until we go to that big football match in the sky.
Lone Ranger thank you for kind thoughts and advice, but I fear just like you we will both be stating our views and support for our beloved parties until we go to that big football match in the sky. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 1

1:43pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger thank you for kind thoughts and advice, but I fear just like you we will both be stating our views and support for our beloved parties until we go to that big football match in the sky.
As you know i am always here to help and guide you ...... hopefully we will both be on the same side at the football match !!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger thank you for kind thoughts and advice, but I fear just like you we will both be stating our views and support for our beloved parties until we go to that big football match in the sky.[/p][/quote]As you know i am always here to help and guide you ...... hopefully we will both be on the same side at the football match !! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Wed 9 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives.

In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members.

An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts.

It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again?

It will sure be interesting in the next few months.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives. In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members. An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts. It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again? It will sure be interesting in the next few months. IronLady2010
  • Score: 2

2:32pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives.

In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members.

An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts.

It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again?

It will sure be interesting in the next few months.
How many union members are there at SCC ??
.
Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ??
.
Great theory ...... but thats all it is
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives. In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members. An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts. It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again? It will sure be interesting in the next few months.[/p][/quote]How many union members are there at SCC ?? . Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ?? . Great theory ...... but thats all it is Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

2:40pm Wed 9 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives.

In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members.

An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts.

It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again?

It will sure be interesting in the next few months.
How many union members are there at SCC ??
.
Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ??
.
Great theory ...... but thats all it is
It was just my opinion. They also had a huge facebook campaign.

The unions job is not to persuade people on who to vote for, that is not democratic. They are supposed to be independent and advise their members on workplace.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives. In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members. An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts. It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again? It will sure be interesting in the next few months.[/p][/quote]How many union members are there at SCC ?? . Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ?? . Great theory ...... but thats all it is[/p][/quote]It was just my opinion. They also had a huge facebook campaign. The unions job is not to persuade people on who to vote for, that is not democratic. They are supposed to be independent and advise their members on workplace. IronLady2010
  • Score: 2

5:47pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives.

In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members.

An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts.

It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again?

It will sure be interesting in the next few months.
How many union members are there at SCC ??
.
Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ??
.
Great theory ...... but thats all it is
It was just my opinion. They also had a huge facebook campaign.

The unions job is not to persuade people on who to vote for, that is not democratic. They are supposed to be independent and advise their members on workplace.
What you tend to forget is that many Union members vote Tory and others vote LibDem, UKIP or Independent. They are certainly NOT all Labour supporters.

They join a Union as a form of insurance, to protect them from poor employers, victimisation, health & safety at work, ensure that they get help/the best terms if redundancy is a possibility and various other reasons.

Union leaders can Advise and Persuade, but they cannot Enforce and Compel.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives. In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members. An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts. It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again? It will sure be interesting in the next few months.[/p][/quote]How many union members are there at SCC ?? . Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ?? . Great theory ...... but thats all it is[/p][/quote]It was just my opinion. They also had a huge facebook campaign. The unions job is not to persuade people on who to vote for, that is not democratic. They are supposed to be independent and advise their members on workplace.[/p][/quote]What you tend to forget is that many Union members vote Tory and others vote LibDem, UKIP or Independent. They are certainly NOT all Labour supporters. They join a Union as a form of insurance, to protect them from poor employers, victimisation, health & safety at work, ensure that they get help/the best terms if redundancy is a possibility and various other reasons. Union leaders can Advise and Persuade, but they cannot Enforce and Compel. Linesman
  • Score: 3

6:02pm Wed 9 Jul 14

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives.

In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members.

An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts.

It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again?

It will sure be interesting in the next few months.
How many union members are there at SCC ??
.
Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ??
.
Great theory ...... but thats all it is
It was just my opinion. They also had a huge facebook campaign.

The unions job is not to persuade people on who to vote for, that is not democratic. They are supposed to be independent and advise their members on workplace.
What you tend to forget is that many Union members vote Tory and others vote LibDem, UKIP or Independent. They are certainly NOT all Labour supporters.

They join a Union as a form of insurance, to protect them from poor employers, victimisation, health & safety at work, ensure that they get help/the best terms if redundancy is a possibility and various other reasons.

Union leaders can Advise and Persuade, but they cannot Enforce and Compel.
I'm glad you accept that.

I do have to pick you up on one point. Unions aren't there to persuade as you put it.

They should be an intermediate body to help resolve any issues that cannot be sorted between employee and employer.

Just look at the bin strikes, the Union leaders thought it was great to make a video about Royston, that's not what a Union should do, it was very unprofessional and made them look stupid. That's why in the end they lost support.

With this new round of cuts coming, will the Unions just back track and let them go ahead? Let's not forget, Labour were voted in on the promise of pay restoration and no cuts which is what the Unions wanted.

Now, we see more cuts as they couldn't do the maths.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives. In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members. An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts. It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again? It will sure be interesting in the next few months.[/p][/quote]How many union members are there at SCC ?? . Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ?? . Great theory ...... but thats all it is[/p][/quote]It was just my opinion. They also had a huge facebook campaign. The unions job is not to persuade people on who to vote for, that is not democratic. They are supposed to be independent and advise their members on workplace.[/p][/quote]What you tend to forget is that many Union members vote Tory and others vote LibDem, UKIP or Independent. They are certainly NOT all Labour supporters. They join a Union as a form of insurance, to protect them from poor employers, victimisation, health & safety at work, ensure that they get help/the best terms if redundancy is a possibility and various other reasons. Union leaders can Advise and Persuade, but they cannot Enforce and Compel.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you accept that. I do have to pick you up on one point. Unions aren't there to persuade as you put it. They should be an intermediate body to help resolve any issues that cannot be sorted between employee and employer. Just look at the bin strikes, the Union leaders thought it was great to make a video about Royston, that's not what a Union should do, it was very unprofessional and made them look stupid. That's why in the end they lost support. With this new round of cuts coming, will the Unions just back track and let them go ahead? Let's not forget, Labour were voted in on the promise of pay restoration and no cuts which is what the Unions wanted. Now, we see more cuts as they couldn't do the maths. IronLady2010
  • Score: 2

6:12pm Wed 9 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points."

Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees.

Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu.

Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts.

For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership.

If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike.

The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action.

DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw
ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?
instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so.
Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them.
just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services.
You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points." Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees. Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu. Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts. For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership. If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike. The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action. DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.[/p][/quote]So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest? instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so. Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them. just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services. You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really? loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Wed 9 Jul 14

loosehead says...

I would love to compare the council tax of Southampton,Portsmou
th.Winchester,Totton & Eastleigh & then with the Cash cow of the Itchen bridge take in revenue & ask why this city is in such a mess compared to the other authorities who haven't got such a lucrative money maker in there area?
I would love to compare the council tax of Southampton,Portsmou th.Winchester,Totton & Eastleigh & then with the Cash cow of the Itchen bridge take in revenue & ask why this city is in such a mess compared to the other authorities who haven't got such a lucrative money maker in there area? loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:18pm Wed 9 Jul 14

loosehead says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
I keep voting for you so once again Labour supporters have got it wrong.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.[/p][/quote]I keep voting for you so once again Labour supporters have got it wrong. loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Wed 9 Jul 14

loosehead says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
"the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government," which were an inevitable result of the incompetence of the economically illiterate Brown
Tories just doing what Tories always do -CUT, CUT, CUT. They then blame Brown for the world wide banking crisis and global recession. Tories want central control by cutting council grants for councils to spend as they choose, then giving grants, usually announced several times to spend on Tory pet projects they hope will make them look good at the election.
Why don't you look at the debt left by Labour deduct the bank bail out money then see who is to blame for all of this?
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "the savage cuts made by the Tory-led government," which were an inevitable result of the incompetence of the economically illiterate Brown[/p][/quote]Tories just doing what Tories always do -CUT, CUT, CUT. They then blame Brown for the world wide banking crisis and global recession. Tories want central control by cutting council grants for councils to spend as they choose, then giving grants, usually announced several times to spend on Tory pet projects they hope will make them look good at the election.[/p][/quote]Why don't you look at the debt left by Labour deduct the bank bail out money then see who is to blame for all of this? loosehead
  • Score: 1

7:31pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Maine Lobster says...

loosehead wrote:
I would love to compare the council tax of Southampton,Portsmou

th.Winchester,Totton & Eastleigh & then with the Cash cow of the Itchen bridge take in revenue & ask why this city is in such a mess compared to the other authorities who haven't got such a lucrative money maker in there area?
I think you will find Southampton Council tax is lower than all neighbouring authorities.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I would love to compare the council tax of Southampton,Portsmou th.Winchester,Totton & Eastleigh & then with the Cash cow of the Itchen bridge take in revenue & ask why this city is in such a mess compared to the other authorities who haven't got such a lucrative money maker in there area?[/p][/quote]I think you will find Southampton Council tax is lower than all neighbouring authorities. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 2

8:07pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I would love to compare the council tax of Southampton,Portsmou


th.Winchester,Totton & Eastleigh & then with the Cash cow of the Itchen bridge take in revenue & ask why this city is in such a mess compared to the other authorities who haven't got such a lucrative money maker in there area?
I think you will find Southampton Council tax is lower than all neighbouring authorities.
I think that your response is wasted here !!
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I would love to compare the council tax of Southampton,Portsmou th.Winchester,Totton & Eastleigh & then with the Cash cow of the Itchen bridge take in revenue & ask why this city is in such a mess compared to the other authorities who haven't got such a lucrative money maker in there area?[/p][/quote]I think you will find Southampton Council tax is lower than all neighbouring authorities.[/p][/quote]I think that your response is wasted here !! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

8:14pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points."

Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees.

Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu.

Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts.

For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership.

If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike.

The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action.

DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw

ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?
instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so.
Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them.
just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services.
You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?
Check the name of their parliamentary constituency.

It is NEW FOREST EAST.

Check who collects their Council Tax.

NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL.

"Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?"

Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence?

Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence.

The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with.

If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay!

In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area.

OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development.

I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points." Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees. Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu. Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts. For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership. If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike. The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action. DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.[/p][/quote]So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest? instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so. Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them. just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services. You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?[/p][/quote]Check the name of their parliamentary constituency. It is NEW FOREST EAST. Check who collects their Council Tax. NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL. "Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?" Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence? Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence. The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with. If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay! In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area. OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development. I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it. Linesman
  • Score: 2

8:30pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Torchie1 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc).

If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now?

Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace.

We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.
I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... .
.
I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad
Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back.
There is a subltel difference between not liking a Democratic Process ( like aldermoorboy) and offering criticism of a parties policies or actions .....
.
As it appears that you lack the intelligence to grasp the difference between the two, I find it quite funny that this basic knowledge eludes you ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not ....
.....
I suppose if I was able to spend the whole day from dawn to dusk becoming the most prolific poster on the site, I might eventually become like you but luckily I have a life, friends, interests and responsibilities which stop me from becoming the sad bigoted individual that you are, and for that I'm grateful. Your every response to anyone who doesn't share your lonely outlook is unpleasant because you lack the ability to offer anything else, and those responses gives an excellent view of the sort of tragic individual you are. Hit the bile button and see what you can come up with.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc). If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now? Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace. We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.[/p][/quote]I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... . . I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad[/p][/quote]Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back.[/p][/quote]There is a subltel difference between not liking a Democratic Process ( like aldermoorboy) and offering criticism of a parties policies or actions ..... . As it appears that you lack the intelligence to grasp the difference between the two, I find it quite funny that this basic knowledge eludes you ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not .... .....[/p][/quote]I suppose if I was able to spend the whole day from dawn to dusk becoming the most prolific poster on the site, I might eventually become like you but luckily I have a life, friends, interests and responsibilities which stop me from becoming the sad bigoted individual that you are, and for that I'm grateful. Your every response to anyone who doesn't share your lonely outlook is unpleasant because you lack the ability to offer anything else, and those responses gives an excellent view of the sort of tragic individual you are. Hit the bile button and see what you can come up with. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power.

They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.
Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off.

Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.
It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.
Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.
When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link!
Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force.
the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK.
The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared.
To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics)
If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it)
The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths.
Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.
Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?
The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages
No luck with those page numbers yet or are you going to lie low for a few days until the dust settles? Let me worry about access to the document and you do the easy bit by providing the references to back up your claims.
What part do you not under stand, you can not get a full copy of the Lisbon Treaty on line, the on-line edf file shows only 306 pages of basic info, the Lisbon Treaty is over 7000 pages, the first 1000 pages go's on about what the Treaty is about and what other treatys it ties in and gives links to these treatys, it also tells you about each country in the EU and who gets the copys.
Tell you what look up page ---4760 to 4778 and tell me what those pages are about
The Treaty of Lisbon is available in it's entirety for those who know where to look.
[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]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: You mustn't forget that the Labour council were aware of the forthcoming cuts to funding when they came to power. They chose not to do anything to address them until they happened then keep blaming Central Government cuts like they appeared out of nowhere.[/p][/quote]Except that the coalition government's original policies failed dismally and they decided to extend the period of austerity; I suspect that there are some on the Conservative side of the coalition who secretly welcome the opportunity to carry on where Thatcher left off. Barnes-Andrews is right and - if we carry on as we are right now - there will be no local government in 2 or 3 years time other than a few large County Councils providing the absolute minimum level of statutory services. If the Conservatives form the next government we can probably kiss goodbye to the NHS as well.[/p][/quote]It will not matter if its a Labour, Tory, Ukip, Greens, Lib/Dems Central Government you are going to kiss the NHS goodbye, Its an EU directive that all state own and controlled health and welfare services will be given to the private sector what ever country it maybe, Councils are slowly being done away with, power and money is being given to an unelected bodys such as the Solent LEP where Corporations have the say how things are done. Government are being controlled by the Bilderberg Group at there meetings a Dutch Democratic Labour Party member spoke to the Bilderberg Protesters on what is really going on in the meetings "World Policy making" And is why when Blair going into number 10 said "there will be no change in Thatcher policy" so we had 13 years to follow of more Thatchers policy and now Cameron with the same Thatcher policy. All these MP's have attended to Bilderberg Meetings in the last 20 years:- Cameron , Osborne, Hague, Clarke, May, Cable, Iain Smith, Huhne, Gove, Pickles, Spelman, Maude, George Young. the Cabinet looking like a Bilderberg Meeting and on the Labour side the list is just as long, And its because the these Bilderberg Meeting is why your not getting a different policy when power changes hands from one political party to the next they all have the same policy of Corporations Controll, it also the reason why policys around the world are more less the same.[/p][/quote]Please can you provide a link to the relevent EU directive on state owned healthcare - I would like to read what it actually says.[/p][/quote]When you make things up as you go along, it's difficult to provide a link![/p][/quote]Sparrow try the EU page on policy, try reading the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty's and under stand what they are about, the Lison Treaty came into force. the Maastricht treaty was forst singed in 1958, and amended in the 80's and agreed on and was signed in by the UK in 1992, its two core functional treatie, establishing the European Economic Community (1958) and how the EU operates, it as been amented a number of times but the 1980's amented that Thatcher signed and came into force 1993, pave the way for the Lisbon Treaty that formlise in 2009 Labour promise us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty a vote that we never got, it came into force in 2012 for the UK. The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:, belong to the EU, belong to EU member countries, are shared. To read the Lisbon Treaty you will have to buy it of the EU commissions, it is not on line, there is how ever limited editions in Libarays (A short version when I say short i do mean short it don't even cover the basics) If you belong to a Union you can ask them if they have a full copy as I know some Unions did buy it and are willing to let any one read it (hope you got a year or two spare to read it) The EU favours Big Business and not the ordinary voting people, If you want to petition the EU as a ordinary voter then you will need 1 million people to sign your petition and will take up to 3 to 4 years after handing the petition in for it to be heard, a business all they need to do is lobby an EMP and they will get heard and it will be delt with in less than a year normal time span is 6 mths. Bilderberg group as the control of the EU, it was them who got it started, there agenda is 10 world wide governments, 10 arm forces, 10 currency, they are also behind the soon to be North American "Amro", and the South America Union that got started a while back, there is more Unions to come, its being done in stages, Its all about Corporations control. A Dutch DLP MP confirmed this, this year to protesters "its all about world policy" part of that agenda is to do away with Borough and city councils giving there power to business (thats what solent lep is all about its a stage in the process of taking power away for local councils slowly sharing at first) remember not so long ago this government said it will give local authority more power and money to controll, where did the power and money go to, it went to it went to Solent LEP and other organisations like this though out the UK, it never went to the local councils, this is just a small part of the Lisbon treaty the removal of a democratic society and a move towards a dystopia society, a centralise dictatorship.[/p][/quote]Both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Maastricht are available in full online, you can also order a copy or you can download a PDF version. Now can we have the relevant page numbers please?[/p][/quote]The Lisbon Treaty is not available in full on line, only a rough guilde line is on line, it only tells you how many parts it is how many sections and what sections deals with what part in pdf form and is only 306 pages, the actual wording is only obtainable from the EU commission which you have to pay for. on the last page of the pdf file it tells you how much it cost for printing and delivery of the full version and is over 7,000 pages[/p][/quote]No luck with those page numbers yet or are you going to lie low for a few days until the dust settles? Let me worry about access to the document and you do the easy bit by providing the references to back up your claims.[/p][/quote]What part do you not under stand, you can not get a full copy of the Lisbon Treaty on line, the on-line edf file shows only 306 pages of basic info, the Lisbon Treaty is over 7000 pages, the first 1000 pages go's on about what the Treaty is about and what other treatys it ties in and gives links to these treatys, it also tells you about each country in the EU and who gets the copys. Tell you what look up page ---4760 to 4778 and tell me what those pages are about[/p][/quote]The Treaty of Lisbon is available in it's entirety for those who know where to look. Torchie1
  • Score: 2

9:08pm Wed 9 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib



utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly!
i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.
While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe.
Really? Shows you really are a left wing bully boy & shows me all I hate about certain elements in the unions.
At BAT I was stand in shop steward, I argued for a guy & saved his job only for him to do exactly the opposite to what he's promised to do.
I thought going on strike for 50p was wrong but the bully boys won the day & where's the manufacturing now taking place?
Are you telling me you'd rather see what is it now 400 permanent staff lose their jobs & services cut or those above £22,000 taking a 2% pay cut rising up with each pay grade until it's 5% the same amount the Tory councillors took as a pay cut?
Instead of saying what I am answer this question .Are the Unions there to save jobs or to go on political strikes?
If to save jobs why aren't we hearing about industrial action from the Unions?
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.[/p][/quote]Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly![/p][/quote]i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.[/p][/quote]While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe.[/p][/quote]Really? Shows you really are a left wing bully boy & shows me all I hate about certain elements in the unions. At BAT I was stand in shop steward, I argued for a guy & saved his job only for him to do exactly the opposite to what he's promised to do. I thought going on strike for 50p was wrong but the bully boys won the day & where's the manufacturing now taking place? Are you telling me you'd rather see what is it now 400 permanent staff lose their jobs & services cut or those above £22,000 taking a 2% pay cut rising up with each pay grade until it's 5% the same amount the Tory councillors took as a pay cut? Instead of saying what I am answer this question .Are the Unions there to save jobs or to go on political strikes? If to save jobs why aren't we hearing about industrial action from the Unions? loosehead
  • Score: -4

9:11pm Wed 9 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points."

Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees.

Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu.

Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts.

For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership.

If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike.

The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action.

DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw


ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?
instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so.
Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them.
just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services.
You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?
Check the name of their parliamentary constituency.

It is NEW FOREST EAST.

Check who collects their Council Tax.

NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL.

"Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?"

Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence?

Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence.

The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with.

If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay!

In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area.

OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development.

I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it.
As I've proven to you time & time again just because an area comes under a ward or council doesn't mean it's in that area.
I live in Lordshill we come under Redbridge Ward does that mean we're in Redbridge?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points." Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees. Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu. Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts. For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership. If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike. The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action. DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.[/p][/quote]So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest? instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so. Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them. just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services. You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?[/p][/quote]Check the name of their parliamentary constituency. It is NEW FOREST EAST. Check who collects their Council Tax. NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL. "Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?" Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence? Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence. The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with. If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay! In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area. OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development. I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it.[/p][/quote]As I've proven to you time & time again just because an area comes under a ward or council doesn't mean it's in that area. I live in Lordshill we come under Redbridge Ward does that mean we're in Redbridge? loosehead
  • Score: -4

9:31pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc).

If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now?

Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace.

We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.
I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... .
.
I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad
Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back.
There is a subltel difference between not liking a Democratic Process ( like aldermoorboy) and offering criticism of a parties policies or actions .....
.
As it appears that you lack the intelligence to grasp the difference between the two, I find it quite funny that this basic knowledge eludes you ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not ....
.....
I suppose if I was able to spend the whole day from dawn to dusk becoming the most prolific poster on the site, I might eventually become like you but luckily I have a life, friends, interests and responsibilities which stop me from becoming the sad bigoted individual that you are, and for that I'm grateful. Your every response to anyone who doesn't share your lonely outlook is unpleasant because you lack the ability to offer anything else, and those responses gives an excellent view of the sort of tragic individual you are. Hit the bile button and see what you can come up with.
No i wont hit the bile button ...... as i seldom stoop to the low level that you are renowned for ....... and achieve on a regular basis. ..... The difference is i have to make an effort to get that low ...... for you seldom ever rise above it
.
How sad that it has taken 24 hours to try an find the words to respond with .... obviously not quite as smart as you think you are ..... but there again ......
.
I am sure that should you have a family, you know .. a wife or children I suggest that you show them some of your posts to them as i am sure that they would be very proud indeed of their husband or dad ..... mkes you think doesnt it ??.
.
There again if you dont have a family like that at home ....... Well i am not the least bit surprised ...... after all who would want a bulls bag like you .......
.
You have a lovely evening ...... and think about the family ... if you have one ............
.
Oh yes ...... and your abuse is wasted on me because i deal with kn*bs like you every day ..... and just love it
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc). If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now? Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace. We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.[/p][/quote]I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... . . I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad[/p][/quote]Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back.[/p][/quote]There is a subltel difference between not liking a Democratic Process ( like aldermoorboy) and offering criticism of a parties policies or actions ..... . As it appears that you lack the intelligence to grasp the difference between the two, I find it quite funny that this basic knowledge eludes you ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not .... .....[/p][/quote]I suppose if I was able to spend the whole day from dawn to dusk becoming the most prolific poster on the site, I might eventually become like you but luckily I have a life, friends, interests and responsibilities which stop me from becoming the sad bigoted individual that you are, and for that I'm grateful. Your every response to anyone who doesn't share your lonely outlook is unpleasant because you lack the ability to offer anything else, and those responses gives an excellent view of the sort of tragic individual you are. Hit the bile button and see what you can come up with.[/p][/quote]No i wont hit the bile button ...... as i seldom stoop to the low level that you are renowned for ....... and achieve on a regular basis. ..... The difference is i have to make an effort to get that low ...... for you seldom ever rise above it . How sad that it has taken 24 hours to try an find the words to respond with .... obviously not quite as smart as you think you are ..... but there again ...... . I am sure that should you have a family, you know .. a wife or children I suggest that you show them some of your posts to them as i am sure that they would be very proud indeed of their husband or dad ..... mkes you think doesnt it ??. . There again if you dont have a family like that at home ....... Well i am not the least bit surprised ...... after all who would want a bulls bag like you ....... . You have a lovely evening ...... and think about the family ... if you have one ............ . Oh yes ...... and your abuse is wasted on me because i deal with kn*bs like you every day ..... and just love it Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 3

9:33pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Maine Lobster says...

loosehead wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib




utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly!
i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.
While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe.
Really? Shows you really are a left wing bully boy & shows me all I hate about certain elements in the unions.
At BAT I was stand in shop steward, I argued for a guy & saved his job only for him to do exactly the opposite to what he's promised to do.
I thought going on strike for 50p was wrong but the bully boys won the day & where's the manufacturing now taking place?
Are you telling me you'd rather see what is it now 400 permanent staff lose their jobs & services cut or those above £22,000 taking a 2% pay cut rising up with each pay grade until it's 5% the same amount the Tory councillors took as a pay cut?
Instead of saying what I am answer this question .Are the Unions there to save jobs or to go on political strikes?
If to save jobs why aren't we hearing about industrial action from the Unions?
I'll answer you. The unions are there to protect their members, their pay and conditions. however, in the current situation, central government is cutting all local authority funding (80% of any council income) by such huge amounts to pay off the deficit,created either by the bankers or Gordon Brown,which ever view you support, so cuts in jobs and services are inevitable. If your Tory party were in power in Southampton,they would be doing as much if not more. As for you labelling me a "left wing bully boy" you have no right to do so and do not know my politics other than the fact I support trade union rights. there are even Conservative trade unionists but you aren't objective enough to recognise both sides of an argument.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.[/p][/quote]Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly![/p][/quote]i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.[/p][/quote]While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe.[/p][/quote]Really? Shows you really are a left wing bully boy & shows me all I hate about certain elements in the unions. At BAT I was stand in shop steward, I argued for a guy & saved his job only for him to do exactly the opposite to what he's promised to do. I thought going on strike for 50p was wrong but the bully boys won the day & where's the manufacturing now taking place? Are you telling me you'd rather see what is it now 400 permanent staff lose their jobs & services cut or those above £22,000 taking a 2% pay cut rising up with each pay grade until it's 5% the same amount the Tory councillors took as a pay cut? Instead of saying what I am answer this question .Are the Unions there to save jobs or to go on political strikes? If to save jobs why aren't we hearing about industrial action from the Unions?[/p][/quote]I'll answer you. The unions are there to protect their members, their pay and conditions. however, in the current situation, central government is cutting all local authority funding (80% of any council income) by such huge amounts to pay off the deficit,created either by the bankers or Gordon Brown,which ever view you support, so cuts in jobs and services are inevitable. If your Tory party were in power in Southampton,they would be doing as much if not more. As for you labelling me a "left wing bully boy" you have no right to do so and do not know my politics other than the fact I support trade union rights. there are even Conservative trade unionists but you aren't objective enough to recognise both sides of an argument. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 4

11:57pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Ronnie G says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
I Know the frontline workers were misled..
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]I Know the frontline workers were misled.. Ronnie G
  • Score: -3

6:54am Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
I Know the frontline workers were misled..
i talk to many of them & the old saying once bitten twice shy comes to mind the only problem for Labour is they feel they've been misled twice by Labour & they've been misled by the Unions.
Surely now after this announcement the Unions should be voting on industrial action?
Or are they so keen on a Labour council their members don't count?
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]I Know the frontline workers were misled..[/p][/quote]i talk to many of them & the old saying once bitten twice shy comes to mind the only problem for Labour is they feel they've been misled twice by Labour & they've been misled by the Unions. Surely now after this announcement the Unions should be voting on industrial action? Or are they so keen on a Labour council their members don't count? loosehead
  • Score: -2

6:54am Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
I Know the frontline workers were misled..
i talk to many of them & the old saying once bitten twice shy comes to mind the only problem for Labour is they feel they've been misled twice by Labour & they've been misled by the Unions.
Surely now after this announcement the Unions should be voting on industrial action?
Or are they so keen on a Labour council their members don't count?
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]I Know the frontline workers were misled..[/p][/quote]i talk to many of them & the old saying once bitten twice shy comes to mind the only problem for Labour is they feel they've been misled twice by Labour & they've been misled by the Unions. Surely now after this announcement the Unions should be voting on industrial action? Or are they so keen on a Labour council their members don't count? loosehead
  • Score: -3

7:02am Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib





utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly!
i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.
While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe.
Really? Shows you really are a left wing bully boy & shows me all I hate about certain elements in the unions.
At BAT I was stand in shop steward, I argued for a guy & saved his job only for him to do exactly the opposite to what he's promised to do.
I thought going on strike for 50p was wrong but the bully boys won the day & where's the manufacturing now taking place?
Are you telling me you'd rather see what is it now 400 permanent staff lose their jobs & services cut or those above £22,000 taking a 2% pay cut rising up with each pay grade until it's 5% the same amount the Tory councillors took as a pay cut?
Instead of saying what I am answer this question .Are the Unions there to save jobs or to go on political strikes?
If to save jobs why aren't we hearing about industrial action from the Unions?
I'll answer you. The unions are there to protect their members, their pay and conditions. however, in the current situation, central government is cutting all local authority funding (80% of any council income) by such huge amounts to pay off the deficit,created either by the bankers or Gordon Brown,which ever view you support, so cuts in jobs and services are inevitable. If your Tory party were in power in Southampton,they would be doing as much if not more. As for you labelling me a "left wing bully boy" you have no right to do so and do not know my politics other than the fact I support trade union rights. there are even Conservative trade unionists but you aren't objective enough to recognise both sides of an argument.
Okay I'll apologise for calling you a Left Wing Bully Boy,But answer this if Labour as they're now saying never knew the size of the cuts in their budget why did Williams before they were elected say how many jobs were to be cut(1,000)?
he said council taxes would rise & services cut yet Labour knowing all this still spent millions restoring pay to those over £22,000 why? could we as a city afford to do it?
I have nothing against Unions but the leadership of Unite were part of Militant tendency weren't they?
every action they take seems to be about bringing down the government at the cost to their members.
then we have the Scottish fiasco were thousands nearly lost their jobs through the unions actions.
There are good & bad Unions & Unite is definitely a bad union (playing politics)
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.[/p][/quote]Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly![/p][/quote]i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.[/p][/quote]While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe.[/p][/quote]Really? Shows you really are a left wing bully boy & shows me all I hate about certain elements in the unions. At BAT I was stand in shop steward, I argued for a guy & saved his job only for him to do exactly the opposite to what he's promised to do. I thought going on strike for 50p was wrong but the bully boys won the day & where's the manufacturing now taking place? Are you telling me you'd rather see what is it now 400 permanent staff lose their jobs & services cut or those above £22,000 taking a 2% pay cut rising up with each pay grade until it's 5% the same amount the Tory councillors took as a pay cut? Instead of saying what I am answer this question .Are the Unions there to save jobs or to go on political strikes? If to save jobs why aren't we hearing about industrial action from the Unions?[/p][/quote]I'll answer you. The unions are there to protect their members, their pay and conditions. however, in the current situation, central government is cutting all local authority funding (80% of any council income) by such huge amounts to pay off the deficit,created either by the bankers or Gordon Brown,which ever view you support, so cuts in jobs and services are inevitable. If your Tory party were in power in Southampton,they would be doing as much if not more. As for you labelling me a "left wing bully boy" you have no right to do so and do not know my politics other than the fact I support trade union rights. there are even Conservative trade unionists but you aren't objective enough to recognise both sides of an argument.[/p][/quote]Okay I'll apologise for calling you a Left Wing Bully Boy,But answer this if Labour as they're now saying never knew the size of the cuts in their budget why did Williams before they were elected say how many jobs were to be cut(1,000)? he said council taxes would rise & services cut yet Labour knowing all this still spent millions restoring pay to those over £22,000 why? could we as a city afford to do it? I have nothing against Unions but the leadership of Unite were part of Militant tendency weren't they? every action they take seems to be about bringing down the government at the cost to their members. then we have the Scottish fiasco were thousands nearly lost their jobs through the unions actions. There are good & bad Unions & Unite is definitely a bad union (playing politics) loosehead
  • Score: -3

8:44am Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives.

In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members.

An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts.

It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again?

It will sure be interesting in the next few months.
How many union members are there at SCC ??
.
Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ??
.
Great theory ...... but thats all it is
It was just my opinion. They also had a huge facebook campaign.

The unions job is not to persuade people on who to vote for, that is not democratic. They are supposed to be independent and advise their members on workplace.
What you tend to forget is that many Union members vote Tory and others vote LibDem, UKIP or Independent. They are certainly NOT all Labour supporters.

They join a Union as a form of insurance, to protect them from poor employers, victimisation, health & safety at work, ensure that they get help/the best terms if redundancy is a possibility and various other reasons.

Union leaders can Advise and Persuade, but they cannot Enforce and Compel.
I'm glad you accept that.

I do have to pick you up on one point. Unions aren't there to persuade as you put it.

They should be an intermediate body to help resolve any issues that cannot be sorted between employee and employer.

Just look at the bin strikes, the Union leaders thought it was great to make a video about Royston, that's not what a Union should do, it was very unprofessional and made them look stupid. That's why in the end they lost support.

With this new round of cuts coming, will the Unions just back track and let them go ahead? Let's not forget, Labour were voted in on the promise of pay restoration and no cuts which is what the Unions wanted.

Now, we see more cuts as they couldn't do the maths.
"Unions aren't there to persuade as you put it. They should be an intermediate body to help resolve any issues that cannot be sorted between employee and employer."

Unions are there as a negotiating body representing the employees, and as such, are an intermediary body. However, to be effective in that role, the body they are negotiating with should be prepared to compromise on points at issue. If they are not prepared to move on any points, then attempts at negotiation are pointless. Why should one side make all of the concessions while the other is not prepared to budge at all?

So the Unions made a video. Sometimes a visual display gets a point across more effectively than a piece of paper. It is a modern means of communication. Are you saying that Unions should not 'move with the times'?

"That's why in the end they lost support."

I was unaware that they lost support. It would certainly appear that the residents of Southampton were on their side, and showed that support at the first opportunity, which was the recent Council elections.

I am aware of what Labour was voted in for, and the promise of pay restoration and no cuts was just one. I am also aware that many people voted Labour, not because of those promises, but because they wished to remove the Tory administration from power.

"Now we see more cuts as they couldn't do the maths."
Were they aware of this £30m financial 'Black Hole' that they were inheriting? I was unaware, and I would imagine that most residents were most surprised when they were made aware. I think that even the most dedicated Tory would not claim that this has only appeared since Labour took control. The money that the Smith administration shucked out on the Sea City Museum is probably one reason for this deficit, and the fact that the number of visitors that it is attracting has never reached the 'break even' figure, is a reason why the Black Hole has got even larger.

Royston Smith & Co were warned that the Sea City Museum was a risky venture, that could lose a lot of money, but as with his stance when meeting with the Unions, He was not prepared to listen.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure the last election was 100% democratic. Remember, how the Unions convinced all of their members to oust the Conservatives. In a democratic world the Unions should have stayed neutral when it comes to politics and simply helped their members. An awful of pressure was put upon fellow union members to vote for Labour as they had been promised restoration of pay cuts and no more cuts. It will be a testing time in the near future to see how the unions react to the cuts that are coming. Will they simply keep their heads down this time or will they bring members out on strike again? It will sure be interesting in the next few months.[/p][/quote]How many union members are there at SCC ?? . Enough to over through a council if they all voted Labour ?? . Great theory ...... but thats all it is[/p][/quote]It was just my opinion. They also had a huge facebook campaign. The unions job is not to persuade people on who to vote for, that is not democratic. They are supposed to be independent and advise their members on workplace.[/p][/quote]What you tend to forget is that many Union members vote Tory and others vote LibDem, UKIP or Independent. They are certainly NOT all Labour supporters. They join a Union as a form of insurance, to protect them from poor employers, victimisation, health & safety at work, ensure that they get help/the best terms if redundancy is a possibility and various other reasons. Union leaders can Advise and Persuade, but they cannot Enforce and Compel.[/p][/quote]I'm glad you accept that. I do have to pick you up on one point. Unions aren't there to persuade as you put it. They should be an intermediate body to help resolve any issues that cannot be sorted between employee and employer. Just look at the bin strikes, the Union leaders thought it was great to make a video about Royston, that's not what a Union should do, it was very unprofessional and made them look stupid. That's why in the end they lost support. With this new round of cuts coming, will the Unions just back track and let them go ahead? Let's not forget, Labour were voted in on the promise of pay restoration and no cuts which is what the Unions wanted. Now, we see more cuts as they couldn't do the maths.[/p][/quote]"Unions aren't there to persuade as you put it. They should be an intermediate body to help resolve any issues that cannot be sorted between employee and employer." Unions are there as a negotiating body representing the employees, and as such, are an intermediary body. However, to be effective in that role, the body they are negotiating with should be prepared to compromise on points at issue. If they are not prepared to move on any points, then attempts at negotiation are pointless. Why should one side make all of the concessions while the other is not prepared to budge at all? So the Unions made a video. Sometimes a visual display gets a point across more effectively than a piece of paper. It is a modern means of communication. Are you saying that Unions should not 'move with the times'? "That's why in the end they lost support." I was unaware that they lost support. It would certainly appear that the residents of Southampton were on their side, and showed that support at the first opportunity, which was the recent Council elections. I am aware of what Labour was voted in for, and the promise of pay restoration and no cuts was just one. I am also aware that many people voted Labour, not because of those promises, but because they wished to remove the Tory administration from power. "Now we see more cuts as they couldn't do the maths." Were they aware of this £30m financial 'Black Hole' that they were inheriting? I was unaware, and I would imagine that most residents were most surprised when they were made aware. I think that even the most dedicated Tory would not claim that this has only appeared since Labour took control. The money that the Smith administration shucked out on the Sea City Museum is probably one reason for this deficit, and the fact that the number of visitors that it is attracting has never reached the 'break even' figure, is a reason why the Black Hole has got even larger. Royston Smith & Co were warned that the Sea City Museum was a risky venture, that could lose a lot of money, but as with his stance when meeting with the Unions, He was not prepared to listen. Linesman
  • Score: 4

9:02am Thu 10 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable.

We could also save money by stop paying the unions.
Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable. We could also save money by stop paying the unions. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -2

9:15am Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points."

Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees.

Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu.

Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts.

For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership.

If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike.

The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action.

DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw



ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?
instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so.
Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them.
just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services.
You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?
Check the name of their parliamentary constituency.

It is NEW FOREST EAST.

Check who collects their Council Tax.

NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL.

"Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?"

Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence?

Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence.

The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with.

If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay!

In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area.

OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development.

I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it.
As I've proven to you time & time again just because an area comes under a ward or council doesn't mean it's in that area.
I live in Lordshill we come under Redbridge Ward does that mean we're in Redbridge?
As I have proven to you time & time again, Lordshill and Redbridge ARE BOTH IN SOUTHAMPTON.

Fawley, Hythe, Exbury, Beaulieu all have their local councils, BUT THEY ARE ALL IN THE NEW FOREST ADMINISTRATIVE AREA.

How many times do you have to be told before you comprehend?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points." Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees. Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu. Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts. For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership. If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike. The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action. DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.[/p][/quote]So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest? instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so. Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them. just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services. You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?[/p][/quote]Check the name of their parliamentary constituency. It is NEW FOREST EAST. Check who collects their Council Tax. NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL. "Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?" Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence? Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence. The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with. If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay! In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area. OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development. I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it.[/p][/quote]As I've proven to you time & time again just because an area comes under a ward or council doesn't mean it's in that area. I live in Lordshill we come under Redbridge Ward does that mean we're in Redbridge?[/p][/quote]As I have proven to you time & time again, Lordshill and Redbridge ARE BOTH IN SOUTHAMPTON. Fawley, Hythe, Exbury, Beaulieu all have their local councils, BUT THEY ARE ALL IN THE NEW FOREST ADMINISTRATIVE AREA. How many times do you have to be told before you comprehend? Linesman
  • Score: 2

9:18am Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people.

Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.
I keep voting for you so once again Labour supporters have got it wrong.
This must be love!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I love democracy, but I hope you would agree the leaflets put out by Labour locally in 2012 were wrong as they mislead people. Regarding voting for oneself on this site, I have never done that before but I will in future if it amuses you.[/p][/quote]I keep voting for you so once again Labour supporters have got it wrong.[/p][/quote]This must be love! Linesman
  • Score: 1

9:27am Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders.
But you appear to be all in favour of bullying employers, and that is what your beloved Royston Smith was.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders.[/p][/quote]But you appear to be all in favour of bullying employers, and that is what your beloved Royston Smith was. Linesman
  • Score: 3

9:31am Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc).

If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now?

Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace.

We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.
I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... .
.
I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad
Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back.
There is a subltel difference between not liking a Democratic Process ( like aldermoorboy) and offering criticism of a parties policies or actions .....
.
As it appears that you lack the intelligence to grasp the difference between the two, I find it quite funny that this basic knowledge eludes you ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not ....
.....
I suppose if I was able to spend the whole day from dawn to dusk becoming the most prolific poster on the site, I might eventually become like you but luckily I have a life, friends, interests and responsibilities which stop me from becoming the sad bigoted individual that you are, and for that I'm grateful. Your every response to anyone who doesn't share your lonely outlook is unpleasant because you lack the ability to offer anything else, and those responses gives an excellent view of the sort of tragic individual you are. Hit the bile button and see what you can come up with.
Instead you are becoming more like loosehead, who claims to meet and speak with so many people, that I think he must have a gymnasium at home, as he never seems to be far away from his computer.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger/ Linesman you are in denial, Labour won the election because they successfully misled the public ( no job losses, no service losses, no pensioner discount loss etc). If the strikes were not political, why no strikes now? Labour did fight the last election without smears and lies as far as I know, but their display in 2012 was a disgrace. We will see what happens in 2015, I hope the decent brave Royston wins along with all the Tories.[/p][/quote]I just hate a poor loser ....... What a pity that once again a true Tory fails to accept the Democratic Process ....... . . I also find it quite amusing that you give yourself a "Thumbs Up" .... how desperate that you have to "like" yourself ..... So sad[/p][/quote]Ever since Gordon Brown failed with his overtures to the Liberals in an effort to make a Lib-Lab coalition, you've failed to accept the 'democratic Process' like a very poor loser and I'm sure you hate yourself for it Pot-Kettle-Black, but it is funny! Now go and make a pot of tea while you try to make a come back.[/p][/quote]There is a subltel difference between not liking a Democratic Process ( like aldermoorboy) and offering criticism of a parties policies or actions ..... . As it appears that you lack the intelligence to grasp the difference between the two, I find it quite funny that this basic knowledge eludes you ...... But there again you do try and make out you are something that you are not .... .....[/p][/quote]I suppose if I was able to spend the whole day from dawn to dusk becoming the most prolific poster on the site, I might eventually become like you but luckily I have a life, friends, interests and responsibilities which stop me from becoming the sad bigoted individual that you are, and for that I'm grateful. Your every response to anyone who doesn't share your lonely outlook is unpleasant because you lack the ability to offer anything else, and those responses gives an excellent view of the sort of tragic individual you are. Hit the bile button and see what you can come up with.[/p][/quote]Instead you are becoming more like loosehead, who claims to meet and speak with so many people, that I think he must have a gymnasium at home, as he never seems to be far away from his computer. Linesman
  • Score: 2

9:44am Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable.

We could also save money by stop paying the unions.
Libraries are there as an aid to education.

If you used them, and read more and wrote less on here, then maybe, just maybe, you would understand the role of Unions, how and why they came about, and the restrictions under which they operate.

You would also discover that, if it were not for the Unions, workers would still be working a six day week, with no paid holidays, sick pay, health & safety at work, minimum wage, have no protection from victimisation at work, no job security etc etc etc.

These benefits did not come about thanks to the kindness of charitable employers, and certainly not from Tory politicians who voted against Labour's introduction of the minimum wage.

With regard libraries and Art centres making a profit, to the best of my knowledge, none have been built where those who had them built have said that they would make a profit or even break even.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable. We could also save money by stop paying the unions.[/p][/quote]Libraries are there as an aid to education. If you used them, and read more and wrote less on here, then maybe, just maybe, you would understand the role of Unions, how and why they came about, and the restrictions under which they operate. You would also discover that, if it were not for the Unions, workers would still be working a six day week, with no paid holidays, sick pay, health & safety at work, minimum wage, have no protection from victimisation at work, no job security etc etc etc. These benefits did not come about thanks to the kindness of charitable employers, and certainly not from Tory politicians who voted against Labour's introduction of the minimum wage. With regard libraries and Art centres making a profit, to the best of my knowledge, none have been built where those who had them built have said that they would make a profit or even break even. Linesman
  • Score: 3

11:26am Thu 10 Jul 14

Jesus_02 says...

mintybee wrote:
Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x
1000's of managers? You are really qualifying your opinion with the belief that there are at least 2000 managers at the council. I’m not sure that there are that many employees let alone managers.

If you want to leave Southampton try going to Winchester, They vote Tory there so only get £28 per head funding cut. Problem is you probably won’t be able to afford to live in Winchester. Funny how that works outs isn’t it.

The Hoi polloi live in the gutter, I prefer to look at the stars, you obviously prefer to look enviously at those who flush their waste in your direction. Maybe Southampton should be like Scotland and go for independence, then all of those that are more interested in abandoning ship rather than stopping it sinking can p!ss off
[quote][p][bold]mintybee[/bold] wrote: Why don't they cut the 1000's of jobs like the very high paid managers who sit there all day who pick and chooses on what services gets the axe I'm sorry they are spending billions on an stature but yet cutting the things we really need someone some were really needs to take a long hard look at this situation because I'm sorry Southampton is becoming a poo hole ( if I could swear I would) as soon as I can I'm out of this place x[/p][/quote]1000's of managers? You are really qualifying your opinion with the belief that there are at least 2000 managers at the council. I’m not sure that there are that many employees let alone managers. If you want to leave Southampton try going to Winchester, They vote Tory there so only get £28 per head funding cut. Problem is you probably won’t be able to afford to live in Winchester. Funny how that works outs isn’t it. The Hoi polloi live in the gutter, I prefer to look at the stars, you obviously prefer to look enviously at those who flush their waste in your direction. Maybe Southampton should be like Scotland and go for independence, then all of those that are more interested in abandoning ship rather than stopping it sinking can p!ss off Jesus_02
  • Score: -1

11:33am Thu 10 Jul 14

Jesus_02 says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable. We could also save money by stop paying the unions.
Libraries are there as an aid to education. If you used them, and read more and wrote less on here, then maybe, just maybe, you would understand the role of Unions, how and why they came about, and the restrictions under which they operate. You would also discover that, if it were not for the Unions, workers would still be working a six day week, with no paid holidays, sick pay, health & safety at work, minimum wage, have no protection from victimisation at work, no job security etc etc etc. These benefits did not come about thanks to the kindness of charitable employers, and certainly not from Tory politicians who voted against Labour's introduction of the minimum wage. With regard libraries and Art centres making a profit, to the best of my knowledge, none have been built where those who had them built have said that they would make a profit or even break even.
Cultures are judged by the arts they produce, I mourn for aldermoorboy, another soul placated by hollow TV shows and self morals perverted by self interest.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable. We could also save money by stop paying the unions.[/p][/quote]Libraries are there as an aid to education. If you used them, and read more and wrote less on here, then maybe, just maybe, you would understand the role of Unions, how and why they came about, and the restrictions under which they operate. You would also discover that, if it were not for the Unions, workers would still be working a six day week, with no paid holidays, sick pay, health & safety at work, minimum wage, have no protection from victimisation at work, no job security etc etc etc. These benefits did not come about thanks to the kindness of charitable employers, and certainly not from Tory politicians who voted against Labour's introduction of the minimum wage. With regard libraries and Art centres making a profit, to the best of my knowledge, none have been built where those who had them built have said that they would make a profit or even break even.[/p][/quote]Cultures are judged by the arts they produce, I mourn for aldermoorboy, another soul placated by hollow TV shows and self morals perverted by self interest. Jesus_02
  • Score: 3

11:55am Thu 10 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Linesman, thank you for your reply.

I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light.

I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions.

Royston is not a bully, he is a brave man standing up for the people of Southampton against a union mob.

What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement.
Linesman, thank you for your reply. I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light. I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions. Royston is not a bully, he is a brave man standing up for the people of Southampton against a union mob. What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -2

1:12pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable.

We could also save money by stop paying the unions.
Libraries are there as an aid to education.

If you used them, and read more and wrote less on here, then maybe, just maybe, you would understand the role of Unions, how and why they came about, and the restrictions under which they operate.

You would also discover that, if it were not for the Unions, workers would still be working a six day week, with no paid holidays, sick pay, health & safety at work, minimum wage, have no protection from victimisation at work, no job security etc etc etc.

These benefits did not come about thanks to the kindness of charitable employers, and certainly not from Tory politicians who voted against Labour's introduction of the minimum wage.

With regard libraries and Art centres making a profit, to the best of my knowledge, none have been built where those who had them built have said that they would make a profit or even break even.
Linesman there was a program called museums at night where City museums were opening there doors as restaurants or theatres or concerto venues to bring in money to make them in the least breaking even if not profitable so as you're a party member why not suggest the council looks into this & invite some one to set up that scheme here in the Sea City Museum?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable. We could also save money by stop paying the unions.[/p][/quote]Libraries are there as an aid to education. If you used them, and read more and wrote less on here, then maybe, just maybe, you would understand the role of Unions, how and why they came about, and the restrictions under which they operate. You would also discover that, if it were not for the Unions, workers would still be working a six day week, with no paid holidays, sick pay, health & safety at work, minimum wage, have no protection from victimisation at work, no job security etc etc etc. These benefits did not come about thanks to the kindness of charitable employers, and certainly not from Tory politicians who voted against Labour's introduction of the minimum wage. With regard libraries and Art centres making a profit, to the best of my knowledge, none have been built where those who had them built have said that they would make a profit or even break even.[/p][/quote]Linesman there was a program called museums at night where City museums were opening there doors as restaurants or theatres or concerto venues to bring in money to make them in the least breaking even if not profitable so as you're a party member why not suggest the council looks into this & invite some one to set up that scheme here in the Sea City Museum? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman, thank you for your reply.

I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light.

I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions.

Royston is not a bully, he is a brave man standing up for the people of Southampton against a union mob.

What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement.
Goodness me how desperate are you to find something to moan about ... unfortunately this City is riddled with such moaners.
.
Perhaps you can indicate which care homes have closed that you refer to ...
.
I would be quite interested to see the list as you refer to the plural "homes".
.
Perhaps just like may other Tories on this site ..... you will probably decide not to answer the question ..... !! ..... anyway i will check back just incase the Leopard changes his spots
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman, thank you for your reply. I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light. I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions. Royston is not a bully, he is a brave man standing up for the people of Southampton against a union mob. What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement.[/p][/quote]Goodness me how desperate are you to find something to moan about ... unfortunately this City is riddled with such moaners. . Perhaps you can indicate which care homes have closed that you refer to ... . I would be quite interested to see the list as you refer to the plural "homes". . Perhaps just like may other Tories on this site ..... you will probably decide not to answer the question ..... !! ..... anyway i will check back just incase the Leopard changes his spots Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

2:00pm Thu 10 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Lone Ranger, I thought that is what read in the Echo early this week, Maybush area I believe, where the vulnerable go for help.

As I am always interested in your views, what do you think of my other comments below?

I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light.

I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions.

What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement.

Good to see you coming to Linesman aid when he is in trouble.
Lone Ranger, I thought that is what read in the Echo early this week, Maybush area I believe, where the vulnerable go for help. As I am always interested in your views, what do you think of my other comments below? I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light. I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions. What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement. Good to see you coming to Linesman aid when he is in trouble. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -2

2:06pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable.

We could also save money by stop paying the unions.
Libraries are there as an aid to education.

If you used them, and read more and wrote less on here, then maybe, just maybe, you would understand the role of Unions, how and why they came about, and the restrictions under which they operate.

You would also discover that, if it were not for the Unions, workers would still be working a six day week, with no paid holidays, sick pay, health & safety at work, minimum wage, have no protection from victimisation at work, no job security etc etc etc.

These benefits did not come about thanks to the kindness of charitable employers, and certainly not from Tory politicians who voted against Labour's introduction of the minimum wage.

With regard libraries and Art centres making a profit, to the best of my knowledge, none have been built where those who had them built have said that they would make a profit or even break even.
Linesman there was a program called museums at night where City museums were opening there doors as restaurants or theatres or concerto venues to bring in money to make them in the least breaking even if not profitable so as you're a party member why not suggest the council looks into this & invite some one to set up that scheme here in the Sea City Museum?
I don't recall that this was part of Royston's original plan when he was claiming that it would be a money-making venture.

To do as you suggest, how do you think that it would turn it around from a loss-making situation?

For a start there would have to be an investment of many thousands of pounds to provide the catering and dining facilities, plus the recruitment of staff. All this would have to be done at a time when the City Council has to come to terms with the £30m financial 'black hole' that Royston Smith & Co left them to 'fill in.'

Add to this the fact that, as stated so many times previously,
IT IS NOT LOCATED IN AN AREA OF THE CITY THAT ATTRACTS MANY VISITORS.

With a financial black hole to deal with, the first thing to do is
STOP DIGGING!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman, do Libraries and the Art centre make a profit? Perhaps we should close them all or privatise them and use the money to care more care of the vulnerable. We could also save money by stop paying the unions.[/p][/quote]Libraries are there as an aid to education. If you used them, and read more and wrote less on here, then maybe, just maybe, you would understand the role of Unions, how and why they came about, and the restrictions under which they operate. You would also discover that, if it were not for the Unions, workers would still be working a six day week, with no paid holidays, sick pay, health & safety at work, minimum wage, have no protection from victimisation at work, no job security etc etc etc. These benefits did not come about thanks to the kindness of charitable employers, and certainly not from Tory politicians who voted against Labour's introduction of the minimum wage. With regard libraries and Art centres making a profit, to the best of my knowledge, none have been built where those who had them built have said that they would make a profit or even break even.[/p][/quote]Linesman there was a program called museums at night where City museums were opening there doors as restaurants or theatres or concerto venues to bring in money to make them in the least breaking even if not profitable so as you're a party member why not suggest the council looks into this & invite some one to set up that scheme here in the Sea City Museum?[/p][/quote]I don't recall that this was part of Royston's original plan when he was claiming that it would be a money-making venture. To do as you suggest, how do you think that it would turn it around from a loss-making situation? For a start there would have to be an investment of many thousands of pounds to provide the catering and dining facilities, plus the recruitment of staff. All this would have to be done at a time when the City Council has to come to terms with the £30m financial 'black hole' that Royston Smith & Co left them to 'fill in.' Add to this the fact that, as stated so many times previously, IT IS NOT LOCATED IN AN AREA OF THE CITY THAT ATTRACTS MANY VISITORS. With a financial black hole to deal with, the first thing to do is STOP DIGGING! Linesman
  • Score: 1

2:19pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger, I thought that is what read in the Echo early this week, Maybush area I believe, where the vulnerable go for help.

As I am always interested in your views, what do you think of my other comments below?

I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light.

I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions.

What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement.

Good to see you coming to Linesman aid when he is in trouble.
I certainly dont need to jump to anyone's aid, and in particular Linesman as he has enough answers to squash the questions that you raise.
.
Whilst some of you points are mildly interesting you are jumping ahead a little .
.
As of today not one care home has been closed let alone "HOMES" as you quoted ....... that is unlike the Tories who closed Birch Lawn.
.
What a pith that you cant make a point without the usual bitter little snipe ....
.
Now once again .... WHERE ARE THE HOME(S) THAT LABOUR HAVE CLOSED . .... You made the statement .... Now back it up !!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger, I thought that is what read in the Echo early this week, Maybush area I believe, where the vulnerable go for help. As I am always interested in your views, what do you think of my other comments below? I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light. I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions. What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement. Good to see you coming to Linesman aid when he is in trouble.[/p][/quote]I certainly dont need to jump to anyone's aid, and in particular Linesman as he has enough answers to squash the questions that you raise. . Whilst some of you points are mildly interesting you are jumping ahead a little . . As of today not one care home has been closed let alone "HOMES" as you quoted ....... that is unlike the Tories who closed Birch Lawn. . What a pith that you cant make a point without the usual bitter little snipe .... . Now once again .... WHERE ARE THE HOME(S) THAT LABOUR HAVE CLOSED . .... You made the statement .... Now back it up !! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

2:38pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman, thank you for your reply.

I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light.

I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions.

Royston is not a bully, he is a brave man standing up for the people of Southampton against a union mob.

What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement.
I have never stated that the Sea Centre Museum was not an education, what I have stated on many occasions is that IT WAS BUILT IN THE WRONG PLACE.
The fact that it is adjacent to the Civic Centre, does not mean that it is a centre to which visitors are attracted.

An additional fact that is not in its favour is because a great deal of emphasis was made of Southampton's association with the Titanic, when anyone who was interested would have been well aware that there was a 'Titanic' museum in Belfast already, and had been for a number of years.

You state that it unites the city. What evidence have you of this?

If you deduct the 'Free' passes, and the school trips that have free entry, and just relied upon the paying visitors, that would give you an idea of how it has 'united' the city.

You appear to confuse bravery with arrogance.

I can only assume that he is against the closing of care homes to ease his guilty conscience, as if he had not been intent on spending money on his prestige project, leaving a massive black hole in the city's economy, which has not been helped by the Tory government slashing the city's grant, that economy would not even have been a consideration.

Incidentally, Lone Ranger does not need to come to my aid, as my arguments are based on facts that are there for all to see and, unfortunately, for many to experience.

May your torrid affair with loosehead continue, but for the sake of us all, please do not breed.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman, thank you for your reply. I assume you have been to the Sea Museum, if so you will know it is an education centre telling the history of this great city, not only does it unite the city ( unlike the union), but it educates all of us ( like Libraries and the art centre). So in my view you should consider in the same light. I also believe they could all make a profit if managed correctly, leaving Labour more money to spend on the unions. Royston is not a bully, he is a brave man standing up for the people of Southampton against a union mob. What a great leader Southampton have standing up for unwanted pubs while closing care homes, you must be so proud of his judgement.[/p][/quote]I have never stated that the Sea Centre Museum was not an education, what I have stated on many occasions is that IT WAS BUILT IN THE WRONG PLACE. The fact that it is adjacent to the Civic Centre, does not mean that it is a centre to which visitors are attracted. An additional fact that is not in its favour is because a great deal of emphasis was made of Southampton's association with the Titanic, when anyone who was interested would have been well aware that there was a 'Titanic' museum in Belfast already, and had been for a number of years. You state that it unites the city. What evidence have you of this? If you deduct the 'Free' passes, and the school trips that have free entry, and just relied upon the paying visitors, that would give you an idea of how it has 'united' the city. You appear to confuse bravery with arrogance. I can only assume that he is against the closing of care homes to ease his guilty conscience, as if he had not been intent on spending money on his prestige project, leaving a massive black hole in the city's economy, which has not been helped by the Tory government slashing the city's grant, that economy would not even have been a consideration. Incidentally, Lone Ranger does not need to come to my aid, as my arguments are based on facts that are there for all to see and, unfortunately, for many to experience. May your torrid affair with loosehead continue, but for the sake of us all, please do not breed. Linesman
  • Score: 1

2:47pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Ronnie G says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders.
But you appear to be all in favour of bullying employers, and that is what your beloved Royston Smith was.
Royston smith did not bully employers. He done everything he could. It was the current labour administration that decided to interfere and tell lies, misleading frontline workers and stirring the sh1t. The whole purpose of the unions was to do everything in their power to oust the conservative administration. It was all about bully boy politics. Nothing to do with the what they should of been doin and protecting their members. The proof is in the pudding now, the workers are about to lose their jobs and where are their union leaders now eh???
These jobs were always to go. Labour just had to hang on til after the elections coz they were worried they'd lose the support.
Labour and union leaders have done the dirty on Southampton workers big style.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders.[/p][/quote]But you appear to be all in favour of bullying employers, and that is what your beloved Royston Smith was.[/p][/quote]Royston smith did not bully employers. He done everything he could. It was the current labour administration that decided to interfere and tell lies, misleading frontline workers and stirring the sh1t. The whole purpose of the unions was to do everything in their power to oust the conservative administration. It was all about bully boy politics. Nothing to do with the what they should of been doin and protecting their members. The proof is in the pudding now, the workers are about to lose their jobs and where are their union leaders now eh??? These jobs were always to go. Labour just had to hang on til after the elections coz they were worried they'd lose the support. Labour and union leaders have done the dirty on Southampton workers big style. Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

3:16pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Maine Lobster says...

loosehead wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.
Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib






utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly!
i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.
While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe.
Really? Shows you really are a left wing bully boy & shows me all I hate about certain elements in the unions.
At BAT I was stand in shop steward, I argued for a guy & saved his job only for him to do exactly the opposite to what he's promised to do.
I thought going on strike for 50p was wrong but the bully boys won the day & where's the manufacturing now taking place?
Are you telling me you'd rather see what is it now 400 permanent staff lose their jobs & services cut or those above £22,000 taking a 2% pay cut rising up with each pay grade until it's 5% the same amount the Tory councillors took as a pay cut?
Instead of saying what I am answer this question .Are the Unions there to save jobs or to go on political strikes?
If to save jobs why aren't we hearing about industrial action from the Unions?
I'll answer you. The unions are there to protect their members, their pay and conditions. however, in the current situation, central government is cutting all local authority funding (80% of any council income) by such huge amounts to pay off the deficit,created either by the bankers or Gordon Brown,which ever view you support, so cuts in jobs and services are inevitable. If your Tory party were in power in Southampton,they would be doing as much if not more. As for you labelling me a "left wing bully boy" you have no right to do so and do not know my politics other than the fact I support trade union rights. there are even Conservative trade unionists but you aren't objective enough to recognise both sides of an argument.
Okay I'll apologise for calling you a Left Wing Bully Boy,But answer this if Labour as they're now saying never knew the size of the cuts in their budget why did Williams before they were elected say how many jobs were to be cut(1,000)?
he said council taxes would rise & services cut yet Labour knowing all this still spent millions restoring pay to those over £22,000 why? could we as a city afford to do it?
I have nothing against Unions but the leadership of Unite were part of Militant tendency weren't they?
every action they take seems to be about bringing down the government at the cost to their members.
then we have the Scottish fiasco were thousands nearly lost their jobs through the unions actions.
There are good & bad Unions & Unite is definitely a bad union (playing politics)
As by you own admittal " there are good and bad unions" please remember that the next time you speak of them all as a collective "mob."
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management services, stop paying the unions for a start.[/p][/quote]Think you will find the membership pays for the union & relevant cost's via their monthly subscription/contrib utions; The working population of the country would be in a far worse place without the unions hard fought for campaigns including - pay & conditions, working hours, health & safety, equality & the list goes on.. Let's not dismiss them too quickly![/p][/quote]i think you'll find the union officials in Southampton are paid a wage by the city council as well as providing them office space.[/p][/quote]While it is clear you hate unions and obviously think no worker should have any rights in the workplace, the reality is that any decent employer who recognises trade unions has to have a practical way in which to have dialogue with its employees. The way to do that is by having trade union representatives who speak on behalf of members for which they are released from their normal duties. What you fail to understand is that relationships in workplaces between trade union reps and management are not the continual agitation that you would have people believe. In many cases, cordial dialogue takes place and issues are progressed daily with joint working, but you only want to focus on disputes so you can spout your usual anti union diatribe.[/p][/quote]Really? Shows you really are a left wing bully boy & shows me all I hate about certain elements in the unions. At BAT I was stand in shop steward, I argued for a guy & saved his job only for him to do exactly the opposite to what he's promised to do. I thought going on strike for 50p was wrong but the bully boys won the day & where's the manufacturing now taking place? Are you telling me you'd rather see what is it now 400 permanent staff lose their jobs & services cut or those above £22,000 taking a 2% pay cut rising up with each pay grade until it's 5% the same amount the Tory councillors took as a pay cut? Instead of saying what I am answer this question .Are the Unions there to save jobs or to go on political strikes? If to save jobs why aren't we hearing about industrial action from the Unions?[/p][/quote]I'll answer you. The unions are there to protect their members, their pay and conditions. however, in the current situation, central government is cutting all local authority funding (80% of any council income) by such huge amounts to pay off the deficit,created either by the bankers or Gordon Brown,which ever view you support, so cuts in jobs and services are inevitable. If your Tory party were in power in Southampton,they would be doing as much if not more. As for you labelling me a "left wing bully boy" you have no right to do so and do not know my politics other than the fact I support trade union rights. there are even Conservative trade unionists but you aren't objective enough to recognise both sides of an argument.[/p][/quote]Okay I'll apologise for calling you a Left Wing Bully Boy,But answer this if Labour as they're now saying never knew the size of the cuts in their budget why did Williams before they were elected say how many jobs were to be cut(1,000)? he said council taxes would rise & services cut yet Labour knowing all this still spent millions restoring pay to those over £22,000 why? could we as a city afford to do it? I have nothing against Unions but the leadership of Unite were part of Militant tendency weren't they? every action they take seems to be about bringing down the government at the cost to their members. then we have the Scottish fiasco were thousands nearly lost their jobs through the unions actions. There are good & bad Unions & Unite is definitely a bad union (playing politics)[/p][/quote]As by you own admittal " there are good and bad unions" please remember that the next time you speak of them all as a collective "mob." Maine Lobster
  • Score: 2

3:29pm Thu 10 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Linesman, Lone Ranger, SEE ABOVE Ronnie G says it better than me, I rest my case.

Linesman I agree union had a place years ago, but now they are controlled by bullies that form a mob and the brave Royston stood up to them for the ordinary people of this city.

Lets hope the people in Itchen realise what a great MP he will be for us all.
I expect in a few years you and Lone Ranger will realise what a gem we have in our midst.
Linesman, Lone Ranger, SEE ABOVE Ronnie G says it better than me, I rest my case. Linesman I agree union had a place years ago, but now they are controlled by bullies that form a mob and the brave Royston stood up to them for the ordinary people of this city. Lets hope the people in Itchen realise what a great MP he will be for us all. I expect in a few years you and Lone Ranger will realise what a gem we have in our midst. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

4:07pm Thu 10 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Maine Lobster, I take your point, but the way Royston was treated by them was a disgrace, I think most people would have called intimidation.
Maine Lobster, I take your point, but the way Royston was treated by them was a disgrace, I think most people would have called intimidation. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman, Lone Ranger, SEE ABOVE Ronnie G says it better than me, I rest my case.

Linesman I agree union had a place years ago, but now they are controlled by bullies that form a mob and the brave Royston stood up to them for the ordinary people of this city.

Lets hope the people in Itchen realise what a great MP he will be for us all.
I expect in a few years you and Lone Ranger will realise what a gem we have in our midst.
If you take notice of him/her then you are a bigger fool than i gave you credit for ...
,.
In the meantime ..... Now once again .... WHERE ARE THE HOME(S) THAT LABOUR HAVE CLOSED . .... You made the statement .... Now back it up !!
.
You are living up to the true Tory poster tradition ...... post unture facts ... then dont have the courage to admit it
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman, Lone Ranger, SEE ABOVE Ronnie G says it better than me, I rest my case. Linesman I agree union had a place years ago, but now they are controlled by bullies that form a mob and the brave Royston stood up to them for the ordinary people of this city. Lets hope the people in Itchen realise what a great MP he will be for us all. I expect in a few years you and Lone Ranger will realise what a gem we have in our midst.[/p][/quote]If you take notice of him/her then you are a bigger fool than i gave you credit for ... ,. In the meantime ..... Now once again .... WHERE ARE THE HOME(S) THAT LABOUR HAVE CLOSED . .... You made the statement .... Now back it up !! . You are living up to the true Tory poster tradition ...... post unture facts ... then dont have the courage to admit it Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

4:33pm Thu 10 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

As I said earlier I was quoting the Echo earlier this week. Maybe you could help me with what they were closing .

I take it by your no comment, you believe in the big Labour plan to save pubs no one wants, please also comment.

Tory 1-0 Labour ( game priority )
As I said earlier I was quoting the Echo earlier this week. Maybe you could help me with what they were closing . I take it by your no comment, you believe in the big Labour plan to save pubs no one wants, please also comment. Tory 1-0 Labour ( game priority ) aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

4:47pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
As I said earlier I was quoting the Echo earlier this week. Maybe you could help me with what they were closing .

I take it by your no comment, you believe in the big Labour plan to save pubs no one wants, please also comment.

Tory 1-0 Labour ( game priority )
You are the one that made the comment ...... now you are caught out ...
.
My word ... you and your chum are a very good pair of ...... well fibbers ..
.
And that was not the quote from the Echo its what you have made to exagerate and score a few points ..... until you were caught out again !!
.
Why posters believe what you and your chum post is totally beyond me .... Tories to the end arent you . ......
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: As I said earlier I was quoting the Echo earlier this week. Maybe you could help me with what they were closing . I take it by your no comment, you believe in the big Labour plan to save pubs no one wants, please also comment. Tory 1-0 Labour ( game priority )[/p][/quote]You are the one that made the comment ...... now you are caught out ... . My word ... you and your chum are a very good pair of ...... well fibbers .. . And that was not the quote from the Echo its what you have made to exagerate and score a few points ..... until you were caught out again !! . Why posters believe what you and your chum post is totally beyond me .... Tories to the end arent you . ...... Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

5:06pm Thu 10 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

No comment on pubs then Lone Ranger, your leader should get his priorities in the right order.

Must end now as I will be up at 5am for more of the same, I am to old to change but you are younger Lone Ranger, save yourself before you end up like Linesman and myself.
No comment on pubs then Lone Ranger, your leader should get his priorities in the right order. Must end now as I will be up at 5am for more of the same, I am to old to change but you are younger Lone Ranger, save yourself before you end up like Linesman and myself. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -2

5:24pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
No comment on pubs then Lone Ranger, your leader should get his priorities in the right order.

Must end now as I will be up at 5am for more of the same, I am to old to change but you are younger Lone Ranger, save yourself before you end up like Linesman and myself.
No i dont do requests .....
.
But as you have discovered i do tell the TRUTH ..... a rare commodity in the Tory ranks i understand
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: No comment on pubs then Lone Ranger, your leader should get his priorities in the right order. Must end now as I will be up at 5am for more of the same, I am to old to change but you are younger Lone Ranger, save yourself before you end up like Linesman and myself.[/p][/quote]No i dont do requests ..... . But as you have discovered i do tell the TRUTH ..... a rare commodity in the Tory ranks i understand Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

6:04pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
As I said earlier I was quoting the Echo earlier this week. Maybe you could help me with what they were closing .

I take it by your no comment, you believe in the big Labour plan to save pubs no one wants, please also comment.

Tory 1-0 Labour ( game priority )
here's one from the above article even though it says they're proposing.
The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: As I said earlier I was quoting the Echo earlier this week. Maybe you could help me with what they were closing . I take it by your no comment, you believe in the big Labour plan to save pubs no one wants, please also comment. Tory 1-0 Labour ( game priority )[/p][/quote]here's one from the above article even though it says they're proposing. The plans include closing Woodside Lodge residential care home in Maybush loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:10pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points."

Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees.

Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu.

Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts.

For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership.

If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike.

The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action.

DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw




ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?
instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so.
Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them.
just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services.
You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?
Check the name of their parliamentary constituency.

It is NEW FOREST EAST.

Check who collects their Council Tax.

NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL.

"Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?"

Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence?

Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence.

The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with.

If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay!

In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area.

OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development.

I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it.
As I've proven to you time & time again just because an area comes under a ward or council doesn't mean it's in that area.
I live in Lordshill we come under Redbridge Ward does that mean we're in Redbridge?
As I have proven to you time & time again, Lordshill and Redbridge ARE BOTH IN SOUTHAMPTON.

Fawley, Hythe, Exbury, Beaulieu all have their local councils, BUT THEY ARE ALL IN THE NEW FOREST ADMINISTRATIVE AREA.

How many times do you have to be told before you comprehend?
But again you miss the point! just because an area comes under an Authority or ward doesn't make it part of that area.
Brockenhurst New Forest Yes Totton,Marchwood,Hyt
he no sorry by their own admissions they're watersiders not foresters or are they wrong?
I can only guess that Aldermoorboy is in fact a man so please tell me with your infinite wisdom how can to Males (straight) Mate? or are you implying we're Gay?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points." Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees. Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu. Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts. For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership. If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike. The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action. DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.[/p][/quote]So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest? instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so. Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them. just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services. You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?[/p][/quote]Check the name of their parliamentary constituency. It is NEW FOREST EAST. Check who collects their Council Tax. NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL. "Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?" Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence? Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence. The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with. If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay! In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area. OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development. I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it.[/p][/quote]As I've proven to you time & time again just because an area comes under a ward or council doesn't mean it's in that area. I live in Lordshill we come under Redbridge Ward does that mean we're in Redbridge?[/p][/quote]As I have proven to you time & time again, Lordshill and Redbridge ARE BOTH IN SOUTHAMPTON. Fawley, Hythe, Exbury, Beaulieu all have their local councils, BUT THEY ARE ALL IN THE NEW FOREST ADMINISTRATIVE AREA. How many times do you have to be told before you comprehend?[/p][/quote]But again you miss the point! just because an area comes under an Authority or ward doesn't make it part of that area. Brockenhurst New Forest Yes Totton,Marchwood,Hyt he no sorry by their own admissions they're watersiders not foresters or are they wrong? I can only guess that Aldermoorboy is in fact a man so please tell me with your infinite wisdom how can to Males (straight) Mate? or are you implying we're Gay? loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:15pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

On here we have a poster who continues to bring Sea City Museum into every debate he's a Labour Party member so I've asked him to get his council/party members to contact the people on the show"Museums at Night" to see how we can open up the museum at night so turning a profit or the least break even as of yet no reply no saying if he'll do this why not?
Is it because a Tory idea could become a great asset to the city ? or is it because it's his only form of attack against the Tories?
Come On Linesman will you see if your Labour Council will look at the feasibility of opening up the Museum at night?
On here we have a poster who continues to bring Sea City Museum into every debate he's a Labour Party member so I've asked him to get his council/party members to contact the people on the show"Museums at Night" to see how we can open up the museum at night so turning a profit or the least break even as of yet no reply no saying if he'll do this why not? Is it because a Tory idea could become a great asset to the city ? or is it because it's his only form of attack against the Tories? Come On Linesman will you see if your Labour Council will look at the feasibility of opening up the Museum at night? loosehead
  • Score: -1

7:01pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Ronnie G says...

LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof... Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

7:31pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points.

Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages.

Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled.

Shame on you Labour.
"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points."

Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees.

Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu.

Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts.

For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership.

If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike.

The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action.

DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw





ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?
instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so.
Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them.
just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services.
You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?
Check the name of their parliamentary constituency.

It is NEW FOREST EAST.

Check who collects their Council Tax.

NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL.

"Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?"

Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence?

Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence.

The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with.

If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay!

In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area.

OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development.

I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it.
As I've proven to you time & time again just because an area comes under a ward or council doesn't mean it's in that area.
I live in Lordshill we come under Redbridge Ward does that mean we're in Redbridge?
As I have proven to you time & time again, Lordshill and Redbridge ARE BOTH IN SOUTHAMPTON.

Fawley, Hythe, Exbury, Beaulieu all have their local councils, BUT THEY ARE ALL IN THE NEW FOREST ADMINISTRATIVE AREA.

How many times do you have to be told before you comprehend?
But again you miss the point! just because an area comes under an Authority or ward doesn't make it part of that area.
Brockenhurst New Forest Yes Totton,Marchwood,Hyt

he no sorry by their own admissions they're watersiders not foresters or are they wrong?
I can only guess that Aldermoorboy is in fact a man so please tell me with your infinite wisdom how can to Males (straight) Mate? or are you implying we're Gay?
OK! You will find that Blackfield, Holbury, Langley, Lepe and Calshot are all separate areas but they come under Fawley Parish Council

You just do not understand. Waterside is an area that includes Hythe, Dibden and Marchwood.

I have only your word for it that you are male. A lot of your comments and conclusions lead me to believe otherwise.

According to my dictionary, that is nearly as old as me, the definition of Gay is:- carefree and merry. bright and cheerful.

You? Carefree and merry? Bright and cheerful?

With so many of your ridiculous comments, I certainly would not describe you as bright.

Continually having a whinge and whine about Unions, you do not come across as a particularly cheerful person.

Carefree and merry? If you were, you would be out with friends (if you have any) or spending more time talking with your wife, instead of appearing to spend half your life on here.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points. Labour/Unions work as one, those strikes were political and against the people of Southampton who pay their wages. Labour looked after themselves and not the poorer workers who I believe were misled. Shame on you Labour.[/p][/quote]"Loosehead as usual you are 100% correct on all your points." Loosehead. The person who thinks that Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest, because it has not got any trees. Loosehead, how claims that Exton is near Beaulieu. Just a couple of examples of his 'as usual, 100% correct' posts. For your information. The strikes were properly conducted, with membership consulted and a democratic vote taken, and action taken that reflected the view of the membership. If it had not done so, the Tory-led government would have used current legislation and taken action against the Union for calling an illegal strike. The Tory-led government did Not, neither did the Tory-led government support the Tory-led Southampton City Council in the action that they took which PROVOKED THE UNIONS into balloting their members for strike action. DESPITE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTHAMPTON, WITH RUBBISH ROTTING IN THE STREETS, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THEY SHOWED WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS TO BLAME, AND USED THEIR VOTES AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT IS WHY ROYSTON SMITH IS NO LONGER LEADER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.[/p][/quote]So are you saying Marchwood,Totton,Faw ley etc are all inside the New Forest? Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest? instead of saying Exbury I mis printed & said Exon & you like the blinkered Labour supporter you are used it against me & are still doing so. Unlike you & your Labour Party I'm all for saving jobs & creating them. just read your own posts where you oppose the expansion of the Port creating more work & now look at this Labour council Cutting job after job plus services. You & Lone Ranger & other Labour supporters can try to blame the government but Williams let it slip you planned these cuts before you were even in power yet you say you didn't know the size of the cuts really?[/p][/quote]Check the name of their parliamentary constituency. It is NEW FOREST EAST. Check who collects their Council Tax. NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL. "Does that mean the outlining suburbs of Southampton are also part of the New Forest?" Is that a serious question or are you really that lacking in intelligence? Changing Exbury to Exton is not a misprint, it is a spelling mistake which, I have no doubt, would not have been corrected if I had not pointed out that, once again, you were wrong. This, incidentally, had Nothing to do with party politics, just your incompetence. The subject of the letter which people are commenting on is the £30m 'Black Hole' that Southampton City Council is faced with. Inherited from the bunch of incompetents led by Royston Smith. I doubt that Williams, or any other member of the Labour group realised what a financial deficit they would be left with. If that were not bad enough, they have Royston's prestige 'White Elephant' to fee and maintain. with not enough visitors to pay for a daily bale of hay! In the past I have given my reasons why I was against the development of Dibden Bay, with the prime reason being, that is the general wish of the majority of New Forest residents, and in particular, the majority of those who live in the Waterside area. OK! So you were probably out for a walk, or met someone in the gym, who was 'all for' the Dibden Bay development. I attended a meeting at a cinema at Holbury tat was PACKED with local residents who were very much against it.[/p][/quote]As I've proven to you time & time again just because an area comes under a ward or council doesn't mean it's in that area. I live in Lordshill we come under Redbridge Ward does that mean we're in Redbridge?[/p][/quote]As I have proven to you time & time again, Lordshill and Redbridge ARE BOTH IN SOUTHAMPTON. Fawley, Hythe, Exbury, Beaulieu all have their local councils, BUT THEY ARE ALL IN THE NEW FOREST ADMINISTRATIVE AREA. How many times do you have to be told before you comprehend?[/p][/quote]But again you miss the point! just because an area comes under an Authority or ward doesn't make it part of that area. Brockenhurst New Forest Yes Totton,Marchwood,Hyt he no sorry by their own admissions they're watersiders not foresters or are they wrong? I can only guess that Aldermoorboy is in fact a man so please tell me with your infinite wisdom how can to Males (straight) Mate? or are you implying we're Gay?[/p][/quote]OK! You will find that Blackfield, Holbury, Langley, Lepe and Calshot are all separate areas but they come under Fawley Parish Council You just do not understand. Waterside is an area that includes Hythe, Dibden and Marchwood. I have only your word for it that you are male. A lot of your comments and conclusions lead me to believe otherwise. According to my dictionary, that is nearly as old as me, the definition of Gay is:- carefree and merry. bright and cheerful. You? Carefree and merry? Bright and cheerful? With so many of your ridiculous comments, I certainly would not describe you as bright. Continually having a whinge and whine about Unions, you do not come across as a particularly cheerful person. Carefree and merry? If you were, you would be out with friends (if you have any) or spending more time talking with your wife, instead of appearing to spend half your life on here. Linesman
  • Score: 2

7:37pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place. Linesman
  • Score: 3

7:54pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
On here we have a poster who continues to bring Sea City Museum into every debate he's a Labour Party member so I've asked him to get his council/party members to contact the people on the show"Museums at Night" to see how we can open up the museum at night so turning a profit or the least break even as of yet no reply no saying if he'll do this why not?
Is it because a Tory idea could become a great asset to the city ? or is it because it's his only form of attack against the Tories?
Come On Linesman will you see if your Labour Council will look at the feasibility of opening up the Museum at night?
On here we have a poster who continues to claim that the Sea City Museum is a financial asset to the city into every debate. He is a Tory Party supporter who fails to come to terms with the fact that his beloved leader, Royston Smith, wasted the city's council taxpayers' money on a prestige project, in the wrong place.

He cannot admit that, although his beloved leader claimed that it would be a 'Money Spinner', the fact is that the city's money has been spinning down the drain, and nowhere near enough paying visitors have been visited for it to break even, let alone make a profit.

Now he is suggesting that the current city council spends even more money to install catering facilities so that even more money can be poured down the drain, because if visitors do not visit the area during the day, they sure as hell are not going to go there in droves in the evening.

At no time has he ever given his estimate of how much money it would cost to carry out his suggestion. A typical Tory attitude of spend, spend, spend, and then blame someone else when the warnings that critics made, come true.

Maybe he wants it to leased to McDonalds?

SO KEEN TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT.

WHY DIDN'T YOU LOOK AT MY POST, TIMED AT 2.06 pm TODAY, WHERE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU ASKED IT?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: On here we have a poster who continues to bring Sea City Museum into every debate he's a Labour Party member so I've asked him to get his council/party members to contact the people on the show"Museums at Night" to see how we can open up the museum at night so turning a profit or the least break even as of yet no reply no saying if he'll do this why not? Is it because a Tory idea could become a great asset to the city ? or is it because it's his only form of attack against the Tories? Come On Linesman will you see if your Labour Council will look at the feasibility of opening up the Museum at night?[/p][/quote]On here we have a poster who continues to claim that the Sea City Museum is a financial asset to the city into every debate. He is a Tory Party supporter who fails to come to terms with the fact that his beloved leader, Royston Smith, wasted the city's council taxpayers' money on a prestige project, in the wrong place. He cannot admit that, although his beloved leader claimed that it would be a 'Money Spinner', the fact is that the city's money has been spinning down the drain, and nowhere near enough paying visitors have been visited for it to break even, let alone make a profit. Now he is suggesting that the current city council spends even more money to install catering facilities so that even more money can be poured down the drain, because if visitors do not visit the area during the day, they sure as hell are not going to go there in droves in the evening. At no time has he ever given his estimate of how much money it would cost to carry out his suggestion. A typical Tory attitude of spend, spend, spend, and then blame someone else when the warnings that critics made, come true. Maybe he wants it to leased to McDonalds? SO KEEN TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT. WHY DIDN'T YOU LOOK AT MY POST, TIMED AT 2.06 pm TODAY, WHERE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU ASKED IT? Linesman
  • Score: 3

8:19pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Ronnie G says...

Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer!
Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer! Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find! Ronnie G
  • Score: -2

8:33pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer!
Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find!
I realised that you could not Put Up.

Just a figment of your imagination.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer! Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find![/p][/quote]I realised that you could not Put Up. Just a figment of your imagination. Linesman
  • Score: 2

8:36pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Your wasting your time with this one Linesman ...... changes his posting name .... He' the one who was Daisy . ...... Then he will start chucking abuse around at you when he's found out ..... as you can see
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Your wasting your time with this one Linesman ...... changes his posting name .... He' the one who was Daisy . ...... Then he will start chucking abuse around at you when he's found out ..... as you can see Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

8:37pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer!
Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find!
I realised that you could not Put Up.

Just a figment of your imagination.
Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer! Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find![/p][/quote]I realised that you could not Put Up. Just a figment of your imagination.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

9:05pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer!
Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find!
I realised that you could not Put Up.

Just a figment of your imagination.
Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever
He's an actual council worker so are you saying they don't know what's going on?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer! Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find![/p][/quote]I realised that you could not Put Up. Just a figment of your imagination.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever[/p][/quote]He's an actual council worker so are you saying they don't know what's going on? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:09pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
Ronnie the loan was for maintenance of the Civic centre building the Sea City Museum was paid for in full.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]Ronnie the loan was for maintenance of the Civic centre building the Sea City Museum was paid for in full. loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:11pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders.
But you appear to be all in favour of bullying employers, and that is what your beloved Royston Smith was.
So take a pay cut save your jobs we'll apply for a grant to ensure refuse collectors keep their jobs & we'll take more on permanently was bully boy tactics was it?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Maine Lobster, I DO NOT DISLIKE UNIONS, but I do dislike union bully leaders.[/p][/quote]But you appear to be all in favour of bullying employers, and that is what your beloved Royston Smith was.[/p][/quote]So take a pay cut save your jobs we'll apply for a grant to ensure refuse collectors keep their jobs & we'll take more on permanently was bully boy tactics was it? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:18pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
On here we have a poster who continues to bring Sea City Museum into every debate he's a Labour Party member so I've asked him to get his council/party members to contact the people on the show"Museums at Night" to see how we can open up the museum at night so turning a profit or the least break even as of yet no reply no saying if he'll do this why not?
Is it because a Tory idea could become a great asset to the city ? or is it because it's his only form of attack against the Tories?
Come On Linesman will you see if your Labour Council will look at the feasibility of opening up the Museum at night?
On here we have a poster who continues to claim that the Sea City Museum is a financial asset to the city into every debate. He is a Tory Party supporter who fails to come to terms with the fact that his beloved leader, Royston Smith, wasted the city's council taxpayers' money on a prestige project, in the wrong place.

He cannot admit that, although his beloved leader claimed that it would be a 'Money Spinner', the fact is that the city's money has been spinning down the drain, and nowhere near enough paying visitors have been visited for it to break even, let alone make a profit.

Now he is suggesting that the current city council spends even more money to install catering facilities so that even more money can be poured down the drain, because if visitors do not visit the area during the day, they sure as hell are not going to go there in droves in the evening.

At no time has he ever given his estimate of how much money it would cost to carry out his suggestion. A typical Tory attitude of spend, spend, spend, and then blame someone else when the warnings that critics made, come true.

Maybe he wants it to leased to McDonalds?

SO KEEN TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT.

WHY DIDN'T YOU LOOK AT MY POST, TIMED AT 2.06 pm TODAY, WHERE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU ASKED IT?
So you think I'm as old & twisted as you are? GAY is a sexual persuasion in my age group.
I go out & enjoy myself I'm not afraid to help any one if they need my help as I've been trying to help you but your so twisted it's just a waste of time.
Slowly but surely the residents of this city are coming around to the fact the Labour council are totally inept at running this city & that is very bad for your Labour MP & candidates prospects in this city.
People know Labour would make this country bankrupt so are turning back from UKIP to the Tories & socialists just won't vote.
With your above posts I can see a striking resemblance with Lone Rangers posts are you losing the argument?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: On here we have a poster who continues to bring Sea City Museum into every debate he's a Labour Party member so I've asked him to get his council/party members to contact the people on the show"Museums at Night" to see how we can open up the museum at night so turning a profit or the least break even as of yet no reply no saying if he'll do this why not? Is it because a Tory idea could become a great asset to the city ? or is it because it's his only form of attack against the Tories? Come On Linesman will you see if your Labour Council will look at the feasibility of opening up the Museum at night?[/p][/quote]On here we have a poster who continues to claim that the Sea City Museum is a financial asset to the city into every debate. He is a Tory Party supporter who fails to come to terms with the fact that his beloved leader, Royston Smith, wasted the city's council taxpayers' money on a prestige project, in the wrong place. He cannot admit that, although his beloved leader claimed that it would be a 'Money Spinner', the fact is that the city's money has been spinning down the drain, and nowhere near enough paying visitors have been visited for it to break even, let alone make a profit. Now he is suggesting that the current city council spends even more money to install catering facilities so that even more money can be poured down the drain, because if visitors do not visit the area during the day, they sure as hell are not going to go there in droves in the evening. At no time has he ever given his estimate of how much money it would cost to carry out his suggestion. A typical Tory attitude of spend, spend, spend, and then blame someone else when the warnings that critics made, come true. Maybe he wants it to leased to McDonalds? SO KEEN TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT. WHY DIDN'T YOU LOOK AT MY POST, TIMED AT 2.06 pm TODAY, WHERE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU ASKED IT?[/p][/quote]So you think I'm as old & twisted as you are? GAY is a sexual persuasion in my age group. I go out & enjoy myself I'm not afraid to help any one if they need my help as I've been trying to help you but your so twisted it's just a waste of time. Slowly but surely the residents of this city are coming around to the fact the Labour council are totally inept at running this city & that is very bad for your Labour MP & candidates prospects in this city. People know Labour would make this country bankrupt so are turning back from UKIP to the Tories & socialists just won't vote. With your above posts I can see a striking resemblance with Lone Rangers posts are you losing the argument? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:19pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Ronnie G says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer!
Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find!
I realised that you could not Put Up.

Just a figment of your imagination.
Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever
Eh, Calm down, Calm down!! You realised I could not put up???
I declined to advise you of the areas you missed. Simple.
Who are you two trying to convince more?
Yourself or whoever reads these posts?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer! Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find![/p][/quote]I realised that you could not Put Up. Just a figment of your imagination.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever[/p][/quote]Eh, Calm down, Calm down!! You realised I could not put up??? I declined to advise you of the areas you missed. Simple. Who are you two trying to convince more? Yourself or whoever reads these posts? Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

9:27pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer!
Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find!
I realised that you could not Put Up.

Just a figment of your imagination.
Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever
Eh, Calm down, Calm down!! You realised I could not put up???
I declined to advise you of the areas you missed. Simple.
Who are you two trying to convince more?
Yourself or whoever reads these posts?
But Ronnie he's always right & he never calls names don't you know?
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer! Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find![/p][/quote]I realised that you could not Put Up. Just a figment of your imagination.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever[/p][/quote]Eh, Calm down, Calm down!! You realised I could not put up??? I declined to advise you of the areas you missed. Simple. Who are you two trying to convince more? Yourself or whoever reads these posts?[/p][/quote]But Ronnie he's always right & he never calls names don't you know? loosehead
  • Score: -2

9:30pm Thu 10 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Labour at National level are proposing councils working together which is exactly what the Tory Council had put in motion with the Isle Of Wight saving both councils millions who scrapped it? Williams & the Labour council now how many jobs & services in this city could that deal have saved?
Labour at National level are proposing councils working together which is exactly what the Tory Council had put in motion with the Isle Of Wight saving both councils millions who scrapped it? Williams & the Labour council now how many jobs & services in this city could that deal have saved? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:46pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Ronnie G says...

No worries, it's cool. He blagging it loose. They all are. Labour in Southampton are in the sh1t. They've told too many lies, misled too many people and done the dirty in every which way they can. They have tied themselves up in knots.
Their arrogance and rudeness is shocking because of the positions they hold. But Quite frankly My 5yr old nephew is more intimidating..
No worries, it's cool. He blagging it loose. They all are. Labour in Southampton are in the sh1t. They've told too many lies, misled too many people and done the dirty in every which way they can. They have tied themselves up in knots. Their arrogance and rudeness is shocking because of the positions they hold. But Quite frankly My 5yr old nephew is more intimidating.. Ronnie G
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
On here we have a poster who continues to bring Sea City Museum into every debate he's a Labour Party member so I've asked him to get his council/party members to contact the people on the show"Museums at Night" to see how we can open up the museum at night so turning a profit or the least break even as of yet no reply no saying if he'll do this why not?
Is it because a Tory idea could become a great asset to the city ? or is it because it's his only form of attack against the Tories?
Come On Linesman will you see if your Labour Council will look at the feasibility of opening up the Museum at night?
On here we have a poster who continues to claim that the Sea City Museum is a financial asset to the city into every debate. He is a Tory Party supporter who fails to come to terms with the fact that his beloved leader, Royston Smith, wasted the city's council taxpayers' money on a prestige project, in the wrong place.

He cannot admit that, although his beloved leader claimed that it would be a 'Money Spinner', the fact is that the city's money has been spinning down the drain, and nowhere near enough paying visitors have been visited for it to break even, let alone make a profit.

Now he is suggesting that the current city council spends even more money to install catering facilities so that even more money can be poured down the drain, because if visitors do not visit the area during the day, they sure as hell are not going to go there in droves in the evening.

At no time has he ever given his estimate of how much money it would cost to carry out his suggestion. A typical Tory attitude of spend, spend, spend, and then blame someone else when the warnings that critics made, come true.

Maybe he wants it to leased to McDonalds?

SO KEEN TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT.

WHY DIDN'T YOU LOOK AT MY POST, TIMED AT 2.06 pm TODAY, WHERE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU ASKED IT?
So you think I'm as old & twisted as you are? GAY is a sexual persuasion in my age group.
I go out & enjoy myself I'm not afraid to help any one if they need my help as I've been trying to help you but your so twisted it's just a waste of time.
Slowly but surely the residents of this city are coming around to the fact the Labour council are totally inept at running this city & that is very bad for your Labour MP & candidates prospects in this city.
People know Labour would make this country bankrupt so are turning back from UKIP to the Tories & socialists just won't vote.
With your above posts I can see a striking resemblance with Lone Rangers posts are you losing the argument?
I gave you the definition in my dictionary.

If you think that you fit the definition in yours, then so be it.

Of course, with your overwhelming modesty, you keep informing each and every one of us how you are always there to help people in the neighbourhood. I have warned you before that you should be careful in case you dislocate your shoulder when patting yourself on the back.

As usual, you appear unable to answer any question that I ask.

Carefree and Merry - Bright and cheerful;

Bleedin hilarious!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: On here we have a poster who continues to bring Sea City Museum into every debate he's a Labour Party member so I've asked him to get his council/party members to contact the people on the show"Museums at Night" to see how we can open up the museum at night so turning a profit or the least break even as of yet no reply no saying if he'll do this why not? Is it because a Tory idea could become a great asset to the city ? or is it because it's his only form of attack against the Tories? Come On Linesman will you see if your Labour Council will look at the feasibility of opening up the Museum at night?[/p][/quote]On here we have a poster who continues to claim that the Sea City Museum is a financial asset to the city into every debate. He is a Tory Party supporter who fails to come to terms with the fact that his beloved leader, Royston Smith, wasted the city's council taxpayers' money on a prestige project, in the wrong place. He cannot admit that, although his beloved leader claimed that it would be a 'Money Spinner', the fact is that the city's money has been spinning down the drain, and nowhere near enough paying visitors have been visited for it to break even, let alone make a profit. Now he is suggesting that the current city council spends even more money to install catering facilities so that even more money can be poured down the drain, because if visitors do not visit the area during the day, they sure as hell are not going to go there in droves in the evening. At no time has he ever given his estimate of how much money it would cost to carry out his suggestion. A typical Tory attitude of spend, spend, spend, and then blame someone else when the warnings that critics made, come true. Maybe he wants it to leased to McDonalds? SO KEEN TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT. WHY DIDN'T YOU LOOK AT MY POST, TIMED AT 2.06 pm TODAY, WHERE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU ASKED IT?[/p][/quote]So you think I'm as old & twisted as you are? GAY is a sexual persuasion in my age group. I go out & enjoy myself I'm not afraid to help any one if they need my help as I've been trying to help you but your so twisted it's just a waste of time. Slowly but surely the residents of this city are coming around to the fact the Labour council are totally inept at running this city & that is very bad for your Labour MP & candidates prospects in this city. People know Labour would make this country bankrupt so are turning back from UKIP to the Tories & socialists just won't vote. With your above posts I can see a striking resemblance with Lone Rangers posts are you losing the argument?[/p][/quote]I gave you the definition in my dictionary. If you think that you fit the definition in yours, then so be it. Of course, with your overwhelming modesty, you keep informing each and every one of us how you are always there to help people in the neighbourhood. I have warned you before that you should be careful in case you dislocate your shoulder when patting yourself on the back. As usual, you appear unable to answer any question that I ask. Carefree and Merry - Bright and cheerful; Bleedin hilarious! Linesman
  • Score: 1

10:52pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer!
Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find!
I realised that you could not Put Up.

Just a figment of your imagination.
Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever
Eh, Calm down, Calm down!! You realised I could not put up???
I declined to advise you of the areas you missed. Simple.
Who are you two trying to convince more?
Yourself or whoever reads these posts?
But Ronnie he's always right & he never calls names don't you know?
The same could not be said of you.

You are usually wrong, and when this is pointed out. you invariably call them a liar.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer! Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find![/p][/quote]I realised that you could not Put Up. Just a figment of your imagination.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever[/p][/quote]Eh, Calm down, Calm down!! You realised I could not put up??? I declined to advise you of the areas you missed. Simple. Who are you two trying to convince more? Yourself or whoever reads these posts?[/p][/quote]But Ronnie he's always right & he never calls names don't you know?[/p][/quote]The same could not be said of you. You are usually wrong, and when this is pointed out. you invariably call them a liar. Linesman
  • Score: -2

5:32am Fri 11 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Latest news Linesman and Lone Range are seen outside the Blacksmith pub in Shirley, picketing saying re open the pub and pull down the newly built houses on the site.

Priority, Priority, Priority, trust Labour we know what we are doing.

Lone Ranger restbite in Kentish road under threat, but no unwanted pubs will close. Join in when you wake up, make my day .
Latest news Linesman and Lone Range are seen outside the Blacksmith pub in Shirley, picketing saying re open the pub and pull down the newly built houses on the site. Priority, Priority, Priority, trust Labour we know what we are doing. Lone Ranger restbite in Kentish road under threat, but no unwanted pubs will close. Join in when you wake up, make my day . aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

5:40am Fri 11 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer!
Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find!
I realised that you could not Put Up.

Just a figment of your imagination.
Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever
Eh, Calm down, Calm down!! You realised I could not put up???
I declined to advise you of the areas you missed. Simple.
Who are you two trying to convince more?
Yourself or whoever reads these posts?
But Ronnie he's always right & he never calls names don't you know?
The same could not be said of you.

You are usually wrong, and when this is pointed out. you invariably call them a liar.
Linesman says I'm wrong so I must be? Take a look at what Labour were saying before elected & look at what they've achieved.
They still have 600 jobs to get rid of these are the words of that honest Councillor Williams.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer! Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find![/p][/quote]I realised that you could not Put Up. Just a figment of your imagination.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever[/p][/quote]Eh, Calm down, Calm down!! You realised I could not put up??? I declined to advise you of the areas you missed. Simple. Who are you two trying to convince more? Yourself or whoever reads these posts?[/p][/quote]But Ronnie he's always right & he never calls names don't you know?[/p][/quote]The same could not be said of you. You are usually wrong, and when this is pointed out. you invariably call them a liar.[/p][/quote]Linesman says I'm wrong so I must be? Take a look at what Labour were saying before elected & look at what they've achieved. They still have 600 jobs to get rid of these are the words of that honest Councillor Williams. loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:29am Fri 11 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
LOL!!! The truth my a$$!!
Here is a truth...
The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin)
There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council.
No-one else.
I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially...
In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...
From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that.

Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that.

You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer!
Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find!
I realised that you could not Put Up.

Just a figment of your imagination.
Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever
He's an actual council worker so are you saying they don't know what's going on?
You fool ....... He is no more a council worker in Southampton than i am .
.
18 months ago he didnt even know who Williams was ....... I doubt if he even lives in the City.
.
You should follow these peoples posts as they give themselves away over the months
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: LOL!!! The truth my a$$!! Here is a truth... The Sea City museum was paid for. The money was left in coffers by Tory admin for remaining loan payments. Labour in 2012 then decided to use the last opportunity to 'extend' the loan by borrowing more money off the back of original loan and also this way they didn't have to apply under a labour admin as original loan was taken out under Tory admin! So labour get to borrow more money off the back off a Tory loan ( offered only because of prompt repayment by Tory admin) There is no blame on the Tory admin for owing money on the Sea City museum, it's down to our conniving labour council. No-one else. I heard the geothermal heating is not as economic as it should be financially... In fact it's that astronomical, the cost has quite literally gone through the roof...[/p][/quote]From you previous posts, I expect you really believe that. Even your gullible buddies, aldermoorboy and loosehead have not come up with a gem like that. You do, of course, realise that to do such a thing, it would have had to be discussed in council. Perhaps you could advise us of the time and date that this took place.[/p][/quote]Ha, Ha, Ha! Not bloody likely officer! Get your own evidence! Seek and ye shall find![/p][/quote]I realised that you could not Put Up. Just a figment of your imagination.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... He has NO evidence whatsoever[/p][/quote]He's an actual council worker so are you saying they don't know what's going on?[/p][/quote]You fool ....... He is no more a council worker in Southampton than i am . . 18 months ago he didnt even know who Williams was ....... I doubt if he even lives in the City. . You should follow these peoples posts as they give themselves away over the months Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

7:52am Fri 11 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Latest news Linesman and Lone Range are seen outside the Blacksmith pub in Shirley, picketing saying re open the pub and pull down the newly built houses on the site.

Priority, Priority, Priority, trust Labour we know what we are doing.

Lone Ranger restbite in Kentish road under threat, but no unwanted pubs will close. Join in when you wake up, make my day .
.... In the meantime ..... Now once again .... WHERE ARE THE HOME(S) THAT LABOUR HAVE CLOSED . .... You made the statement .... Now back it up .
.
You can try to avoid the statement that you made but once again as i have pointed out on numerous occasions ..... Its you that cant handle the truth is it .......
.
After all this must have been on your mind to post again at 5:32 ..... how sad is that .... OK you get up early .... but to want to