Jeremy Moulton will challenge Alan Whitehead for MP seat

Top city Tory to battle MP seat

Top city Tory to battle MP seat

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

THE Conservatives have named their candidate to challenge Southampton Test MP Alan Whitehead at next year's General Election.

Jeremy Moulton, a former city council deputy leader and current Tory council opposition deputy leader, was unanimously selected by fellow party members at a meeting on Wednesday (July 30).

Cllr Moulton has been a ward councillor in Freemantle for 13 years, and fought the seat in the 2010 General Election, losing out to Labour's Dr Whitehead by less than 2,500 votes.

The former Richard Taunton's College student said: "I am honoured to be selected to stand for Southampton Test in next year's General Election.

"As a local person I know the constituency like the back of my hand and care passionately about the area where I live and grew up.

“This will be a critical General Election.

“The country is getting back on track and the economy is mending and we need a Conservative Government, which has a long term economic plan for the future to complete the job.

“A Labour government would put the recovery and jobs at risk, it would mean we go back to the bad days of uncontrolled borrowing and will mean big tax rises for people who are struggling as it is with the cost of living."

Cllr Moulton, who works as a pensions manager for Friends Life, says his priorities if elected will be growing and supporting the local economy, creating more jobs, and improving skills and education.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:58am Thu 31 Jul 14

skeptik says...

I am a conservative and that is why he along with whatever the party have become will not get my vote. They are not the party for all, that they at least used to try and be.
I am a conservative and that is why he along with whatever the party have become will not get my vote. They are not the party for all, that they at least used to try and be. skeptik
  • Score: 1

11:07am Thu 31 Jul 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

Although, I won't be voting Conservative, Ido respect Jeremy Moulton's courage in standing again in unwinnable Test Southampton when there are so many other safe Tory seats on offer in other parts of the County with resignations of sitting MPs.
Although, I won't be voting Conservative, Ido respect Jeremy Moulton's courage in standing again in unwinnable Test Southampton when there are so many other safe Tory seats on offer in other parts of the County with resignations of sitting MPs. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 7

11:09am Thu 31 Jul 14

commonsense888 says...

Any councillor who can put plans in place to redevelop Leisure World into a First Class cruise terminal which has similarities to Gunwharf along with an Ice Rink and/or indoor ski slope will get my vote!
Any councillor who can put plans in place to redevelop Leisure World into a First Class cruise terminal which has similarities to Gunwharf along with an Ice Rink and/or indoor ski slope will get my vote! commonsense888
  • Score: -1

11:15am Thu 31 Jul 14

southy says...

The gap between Labour and Torys in the Test Constituency will be far greater than 2010 election of 2,500 votes, the Torys then was on an up and Labour on a down and if the Torys could not do it then, they are not going to do it when the Torys are on a down and Labour is on the up, It be another 5 years of Whitehead thats for sure.
The gap between Labour and Torys in the Test Constituency will be far greater than 2010 election of 2,500 votes, the Torys then was on an up and Labour on a down and if the Torys could not do it then, they are not going to do it when the Torys are on a down and Labour is on the up, It be another 5 years of Whitehead thats for sure. southy
  • Score: 0

11:26am Thu 31 Jul 14

H0ckeyd says...

skeptik wrote:
I am a conservative and that is why he along with whatever the party have become will not get my vote. They are not the party for all, that they at least used to try and be.
"party for all" when were they ever that then? I still find it chucklesome that those living in poor estates ever thought the Tories would stand up for then. No, they're in it for their mates.
[quote][p][bold]skeptik[/bold] wrote: I am a conservative and that is why he along with whatever the party have become will not get my vote. They are not the party for all, that they at least used to try and be.[/p][/quote]"party for all" when were they ever that then? I still find it chucklesome that those living in poor estates ever thought the Tories would stand up for then. No, they're in it for their mates. H0ckeyd
  • Score: 8

12:03pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

H0ckeyd wrote:
skeptik wrote:
I am a conservative and that is why he along with whatever the party have become will not get my vote. They are not the party for all, that they at least used to try and be.
"party for all" when were they ever that then? I still find it chucklesome that those living in poor estates ever thought the Tories would stand up for then. No, they're in it for their mates.
Quite right, of course, and no doubt your vote will be going to the Honourable Miss Wedgewood Benn, or the son of multi-millionaire Blair or of extremely wealthy Straw- yes there's nothing like a vote for the ****-handed sons (& daughters) of toil.
[quote][p][bold]H0ckeyd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skeptik[/bold] wrote: I am a conservative and that is why he along with whatever the party have become will not get my vote. They are not the party for all, that they at least used to try and be.[/p][/quote]"party for all" when were they ever that then? I still find it chucklesome that those living in poor estates ever thought the Tories would stand up for then. No, they're in it for their mates.[/p][/quote]Quite right, of course, and no doubt your vote will be going to the Honourable Miss Wedgewood Benn, or the son of multi-millionaire Blair or of extremely wealthy Straw- yes there's nothing like a vote for the ****-handed sons (& daughters) of toil. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

12:07pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

The word asterisked out was the adjective from the noun meaning " the bony projection on an animal's head ". We are such sensitive souls are we not? I'd better get on with putting lace round the piano legs.
The word asterisked out was the adjective from the noun meaning " the bony projection on an animal's head ". We are such sensitive souls are we not? I'd better get on with putting lace round the piano legs. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

12:13pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Linesman says...

Dai Rear wrote:
The word asterisked out was the adjective from the noun meaning " the bony projection on an animal's head ". We are such sensitive souls are we not? I'd better get on with putting lace round the piano legs.
Antlers?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: The word asterisked out was the adjective from the noun meaning " the bony projection on an animal's head ". We are such sensitive souls are we not? I'd better get on with putting lace round the piano legs.[/p][/quote]Antlers? Linesman
  • Score: 1

12:37pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

Well if they were antler- handed it'd certainly stop them picking their noses.
Well if they were antler- handed it'd certainly stop them picking their noses. Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

2:14pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

commonsense888 wrote:
Any councillor who can put plans in place to redevelop Leisure World into a First Class cruise terminal which has similarities to Gunwharf along with an Ice Rink and/or indoor ski slope will get my vote!
But he cant ...... so it looks like you wont be voting if thats your the only criteria that you expect from a politician
[quote][p][bold]commonsense888[/bold] wrote: Any councillor who can put plans in place to redevelop Leisure World into a First Class cruise terminal which has similarities to Gunwharf along with an Ice Rink and/or indoor ski slope will get my vote![/p][/quote]But he cant ...... so it looks like you wont be voting if thats your the only criteria that you expect from a politician Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 4

2:22pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Is Cllr Moulton going to resign his seat before the election ....... or resign when he fails to win as an MP again
Is Cllr Moulton going to resign his seat before the election ....... or resign when he fails to win as an MP again Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Linesman says...

So there will be a Tory City Councillor standing in Itchen and another in Test, both members of the Tory administration that was responsible for seeing uncollected rubbish rotting in the streets.

I bet they will not feature that 'service to the community' in their election pamphlets.
So there will be a Tory City Councillor standing in Itchen and another in Test, both members of the Tory administration that was responsible for seeing uncollected rubbish rotting in the streets. I bet they will not feature that 'service to the community' in their election pamphlets. Linesman
  • Score: 3

4:00pm Thu 31 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Well as expected the left wing have come out against Moulton I wonder why?
Skeptic! Jeremy has helped his constituents & is willing as a Southampton councillor to help in other wards besides his own.
It isn't/wasn't his Tory council that has made 400 jobs redundant .
Now HOckeyed exactly hows the raising of the tax threshold up to £1 0,000 before you pay tax looking after the boys?
What was the top rate of tax under Labour? 60p? 50p? 40p? just in case you didn't know it was 40p unless you go back to Harold Wilson.
Under this government they've hit their friends as you put it with a 50p in the pound tax which they've lowered to 45p.
Under Brown we had the 10p tax which he then scrapped we had taxes in all it's forms go up so how are Labour looking out for the working man?
Unless you don't ever want to work your not being attacked by this government & indeed there's more jobs there now than at any recorded time so more choice for those looking to work & they created this situation not Labour,
Well as expected the left wing have come out against Moulton I wonder why? Skeptic! Jeremy has helped his constituents & is willing as a Southampton councillor to help in other wards besides his own. It isn't/wasn't his Tory council that has made 400 jobs redundant . Now HOckeyed exactly hows the raising of the tax threshold up to £1 0,000 before you pay tax looking after the boys? What was the top rate of tax under Labour? 60p? 50p? 40p? just in case you didn't know it was 40p unless you go back to Harold Wilson. Under this government they've hit their friends as you put it with a 50p in the pound tax which they've lowered to 45p. Under Brown we had the 10p tax which he then scrapped we had taxes in all it's forms go up so how are Labour looking out for the working man? Unless you don't ever want to work your not being attacked by this government & indeed there's more jobs there now than at any recorded time so more choice for those looking to work & they created this situation not Labour, loosehead
  • Score: -3

4:15pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Well as expected the left wing have come out against Moulton I wonder why?
Skeptic! Jeremy has helped his constituents & is willing as a Southampton councillor to help in other wards besides his own.
It isn't/wasn't his Tory council that has made 400 jobs redundant .
Now HOckeyed exactly hows the raising of the tax threshold up to £1 0,000 before you pay tax looking after the boys?
What was the top rate of tax under Labour? 60p? 50p? 40p? just in case you didn't know it was 40p unless you go back to Harold Wilson.
Under this government they've hit their friends as you put it with a 50p in the pound tax which they've lowered to 45p.
Under Brown we had the 10p tax which he then scrapped we had taxes in all it's forms go up so how are Labour looking out for the working man?
Unless you don't ever want to work your not being attacked by this government & indeed there's more jobs there now than at any recorded time so more choice for those looking to work & they created this situation not Labour,
"Jeremy has helped his constituents & is willing as a Southampton councillor to help in other wards besides his own."

That's correct.

As part of the Royston Smith administration, he saw to it that rubbish was not only rotting is the streets in his ward, but also in streets across the city.

With all the red herrings you are introducing, you should be OK for fish and chips on Friday.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Well as expected the left wing have come out against Moulton I wonder why? Skeptic! Jeremy has helped his constituents & is willing as a Southampton councillor to help in other wards besides his own. It isn't/wasn't his Tory council that has made 400 jobs redundant . Now HOckeyed exactly hows the raising of the tax threshold up to £1 0,000 before you pay tax looking after the boys? What was the top rate of tax under Labour? 60p? 50p? 40p? just in case you didn't know it was 40p unless you go back to Harold Wilson. Under this government they've hit their friends as you put it with a 50p in the pound tax which they've lowered to 45p. Under Brown we had the 10p tax which he then scrapped we had taxes in all it's forms go up so how are Labour looking out for the working man? Unless you don't ever want to work your not being attacked by this government & indeed there's more jobs there now than at any recorded time so more choice for those looking to work & they created this situation not Labour,[/p][/quote]"Jeremy has helped his constituents & is willing as a Southampton councillor to help in other wards besides his own." That's correct. As part of the Royston Smith administration, he saw to it that rubbish was not only rotting is the streets in his ward, but also in streets across the city. With all the red herrings you are introducing, you should be OK for fish and chips on Friday. Linesman
  • Score: 1

4:51pm Thu 31 Jul 14

aldermoorboy says...

Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth.
Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is.

Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town.
Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth. Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is. Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

4:53pm Thu 31 Jul 14

downfader says...

Wait! Can we just check? Is he local?

;-P
Wait! Can we just check? Is he local? ;-P downfader
  • Score: 3

6:24pm Thu 31 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power?
He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency.
at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter?
Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election.
I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected?
How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were?
What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt.
What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs?
So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action?
Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings?
Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour.
NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to.
Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay.
under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped.
Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead.
I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.
Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power? He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency. at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter? Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election. I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected? How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were? What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt. What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs? So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action? Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings? Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour. NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to. Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay. under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped. Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead. I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes. loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:26pm Thu 31 Jul 14

loosehead says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth.
Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is.

Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town.
Will you be joining me in leafletting & canvassing for Jeremy's win?
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth. Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is. Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town.[/p][/quote]Will you be joining me in leafletting & canvassing for Jeremy's win? loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:32pm Thu 31 Jul 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

loosehead wrote:
Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power?
He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency.
at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter?
Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election.
I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected?
How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were?
What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt.
What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs?
So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action?
Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings?
Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour.
NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to.
Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay.
under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped.
Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead.
I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.
Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power? He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency. at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter? Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election. I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected? How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were? What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt. What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs? So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action? Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings? Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour. NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to. Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay. under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped. Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead. I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.[/p][/quote]Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 3

7:35pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth.
Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is.

Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town.
........ "both make decent MP's" ...... how do you work that out when they were both cllrs in the failed ruling coservatives . ...... even then on a small scale they were way out of their depth ...
.
Failing to deal employees o strike is one thing being "grossly incompetent" is another .....
.
The council they controlled between them wasted £m's on a big "White Elephant" that me as a taxpayer is paying for again ..... Oversaw the poor "competition" for a Spitfire monument, denied all knowledge of the infamous Sulphur Plant ........
.
......... however they were not all bad ..... they gave us 10 minutes free parking in Bedford Place .....
.
Yes that is the result of four years of Tory rule ........ and you tell me thaey will make good MP's ........ You are a joke
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth. Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is. Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town.[/p][/quote]........ "both make decent MP's" ...... how do you work that out when they were both cllrs in the failed ruling coservatives . ...... even then on a small scale they were way out of their depth ... . Failing to deal employees o strike is one thing being "grossly incompetent" is another ..... . The council they controlled between them wasted £m's on a big "White Elephant" that me as a taxpayer is paying for again ..... Oversaw the poor "competition" for a Spitfire monument, denied all knowledge of the infamous Sulphur Plant ........ . ......... however they were not all bad ..... they gave us 10 minutes free parking in Bedford Place ..... . Yes that is the result of four years of Tory rule ........ and you tell me thaey will make good MP's ........ You are a joke Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 3

9:02pm Thu 31 Jul 14

loosehead says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power?
He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency.
at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter?
Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election.
I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected?
How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were?
What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt.
What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs?
So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action?
Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings?
Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour.
NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to.
Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay.
under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped.
Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead.
I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.
Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing?
What I think is wrong is how hypocritical the Labour party & the Unions are being.
Take the deal or reapply for your jobs & no mention of a ballot by the unions?
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power? He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency. at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter? Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election. I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected? How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were? What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt. What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs? So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action? Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings? Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour. NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to. Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay. under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped. Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead. I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.[/p][/quote]Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing?[/p][/quote]What I think is wrong is how hypocritical the Labour party & the Unions are being. Take the deal or reapply for your jobs & no mention of a ballot by the unions? loosehead
  • Score: -4

9:08pm Thu 31 Jul 14

loosehead says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power?
He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency.
at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter?
Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election.
I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected?
How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were?
What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt.
What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs?
So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action?
Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings?
Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour.
NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to.
Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay.
under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped.
Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead.
I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.
Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing?
The Living wage as such will vary from one part of the country to the next from one city to the next.
A company employing people in say Winchester & people in say Liverpool doing exactly the same job but both being on the living wage will end up with one group of employees earning less than another for doing the same job is that fair?
Didn't the Unions fight against that?
As far as I knew London was the exception to the rule but now if I was setting up a company in this country & only wanted to pay the Living wage I'd move to the area with the lowest wage now is that what Labour wants? Industry moving to Labours heart lands?
Who's going to pay for this increase in the public sectors pay?
People who've taken a pay cut to keep a job?
Or are those council workers on the top level of pay going to take a pay cut to give the lower paid more?
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power? He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency. at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter? Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election. I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected? How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were? What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt. What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs? So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action? Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings? Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour. NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to. Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay. under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped. Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead. I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.[/p][/quote]Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing?[/p][/quote]The Living wage as such will vary from one part of the country to the next from one city to the next. A company employing people in say Winchester & people in say Liverpool doing exactly the same job but both being on the living wage will end up with one group of employees earning less than another for doing the same job is that fair? Didn't the Unions fight against that? As far as I knew London was the exception to the rule but now if I was setting up a company in this country & only wanted to pay the Living wage I'd move to the area with the lowest wage now is that what Labour wants? Industry moving to Labours heart lands? Who's going to pay for this increase in the public sectors pay? People who've taken a pay cut to keep a job? Or are those council workers on the top level of pay going to take a pay cut to give the lower paid more? loosehead
  • Score: -4

9:54pm Thu 31 Jul 14

The Watcher says...

OH MY GOD
.
So my party repeats its past mistakes but putting forward the same two stooges who failed miserably last time around. Two poor politicians who couldn't unseat the representatives of the the worst Government in years!
.
I think it was Einstein who described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
.
PS Cllr Smith will have to change his strap line as i dont think Cllr Moulton isn't born & bred here.
.
Messrs Hill & Chope seem a long time ago.
OH MY GOD . So my party repeats its past mistakes but putting forward the same two stooges who failed miserably last time around. Two poor politicians who couldn't unseat the representatives of the the worst Government in years! . I think it was Einstein who described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. . PS Cllr Smith will have to change his strap line as i dont think Cllr Moulton isn't born & bred here. . Messrs Hill & Chope seem a long time ago. The Watcher
  • Score: 3

10:45pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth.
Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is.

Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town.
You know and I know that Royston Smith provoked the unions into taking strike action, thinking that he would get Brownie Points from Cameron.

He did not get that support because it was blatantly obvious to Cameron that Royston Smith was in the wrong.

The electorate also knew who was at fault, which is why Royston Smith is no longer the leader of Southampton City Council.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth. Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is. Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town.[/p][/quote]You know and I know that Royston Smith provoked the unions into taking strike action, thinking that he would get Brownie Points from Cameron. He did not get that support because it was blatantly obvious to Cameron that Royston Smith was in the wrong. The electorate also knew who was at fault, which is why Royston Smith is no longer the leader of Southampton City Council. Linesman
  • Score: 1

10:50pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power?
He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency.
at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter?
Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election.
I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected?
How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were?
What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt.
What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs?
So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action?
Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings?
Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour.
NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to.
Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay.
under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped.
Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead.
I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.
If he alienated them so much, I assume that he must have re-elected by disaffected Tories.

Have you ever thought of a career as a comic, as some of your conclusions are absolutely hilarious?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power? He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency. at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter? Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election. I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected? How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were? What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt. What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs? So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action? Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings? Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour. NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to. Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay. under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped. Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead. I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.[/p][/quote]If he alienated them so much, I assume that he must have re-elected by disaffected Tories. Have you ever thought of a career as a comic, as some of your conclusions are absolutely hilarious? Linesman
  • Score: 1

10:52pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth.
Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is.

Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town.
Will you be joining me in leafletting & canvassing for Jeremy's win?
Blimey! loosehead is using this site as a dating agency.

Have a nice time.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman you know and I know the strikes were caused by Labour /unions you just cannot face the truth. Labour have gone from being a caring party to a selfish party and Loosehead as normal is telling it as it is. Good luck Jeremy and Royston you would both make decent MP's and do a great job for this town.[/p][/quote]Will you be joining me in leafletting & canvassing for Jeremy's win?[/p][/quote]Blimey! loosehead is using this site as a dating agency. Have a nice time. Linesman
  • Score: 1

10:54pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power?
He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency.
at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter?
Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election.
I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected?
How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were?
What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt.
What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs?
So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action?
Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings?
Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour.
NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to.
Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay.
under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped.
Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead.
I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.
Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing?
What I think is wrong is how hypocritical the Labour party & the Unions are being.
Take the deal or reapply for your jobs & no mention of a ballot by the unions?
Once again, loosehead avoids answering a question preferring to stick with introducing another Red Herring.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power? He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency. at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter? Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election. I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected? How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were? What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt. What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs? So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action? Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings? Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour. NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to. Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay. under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped. Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead. I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.[/p][/quote]Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing?[/p][/quote]What I think is wrong is how hypocritical the Labour party & the Unions are being. Take the deal or reapply for your jobs & no mention of a ballot by the unions?[/p][/quote]Once again, loosehead avoids answering a question preferring to stick with introducing another Red Herring. Linesman
  • Score: 1

10:56pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power?
He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency.
at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter?
Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election.
I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected?
How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were?
What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt.
What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs?
So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action?
Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings?
Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour.
NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to.
Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay.
under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped.
Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead.
I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.
Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing?
The Living wage as such will vary from one part of the country to the next from one city to the next.
A company employing people in say Winchester & people in say Liverpool doing exactly the same job but both being on the living wage will end up with one group of employees earning less than another for doing the same job is that fair?
Didn't the Unions fight against that?
As far as I knew London was the exception to the rule but now if I was setting up a company in this country & only wanted to pay the Living wage I'd move to the area with the lowest wage now is that what Labour wants? Industry moving to Labours heart lands?
Who's going to pay for this increase in the public sectors pay?
People who've taken a pay cut to keep a job?
Or are those council workers on the top level of pay going to take a pay cut to give the lower paid more?
Excrement produced by the male of the bovine species.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Let's look at Whiteheads track record. was a councillor but alienated many Labour supporters ( my mum was one) but had a great idea with the monorail but once elected as an MP why didn't he try to get it going once Labour had one power? He refused to back 1,000 workers & many others at BAT no matter if he doesn't agree with smoking these were jobs for many in his constituency. at a meeting in Randolph street he was asked(by me) about CCTV's to tackle the yobs who were attacking old people he said it was a council matter? Now I live in Lordshill I've seen him yes. knocking Labour supporters doors but only before a general election. I saw him on PMQ's asking a question that had nothing what so ever to do with the needs of this city so again exactly what has he done for us since he was elected? How many times must the blind of the left have it pointed out to them just how politically motivated those strikes were? What the Unions put this city through with Labours total agreement just to get Labour elected has now been proven with out a doubt. What was it Labour have just said to low paid workers? take the new deal & a living wage or reapply for your jobs? So why isn't the Unions balloting it's members on strike action? Why is it Labour in the last two years have cut 400 jobs as well as services ? again why hasn't the Unions called for mass meetings? Who told the voters the Tories would cut jobs & services as well as Surestarts? Who said they could restore pay with no job cuts or cuts to services? Labour. NO sorry Williams said he cut even more but changed it when the Unions told him to. Under the Tories Council workers had for four future years job security thanks to the cut in pay. under the Tories services,front line were safe thanks to a 2 million+ deal done with the Island which labour scrapped. Moulton has supported jobs (Lidl warehouse) but if his constituents were against a development he stood by them ( Bio Mass) he has considered his voters wishes unlike Whitehead. I can't say about Royston as I don't know him but when he went for a cut in pay every reason he gave for taking that path has now come true so I take it he's an honest man even if that loses him votes.[/p][/quote]Loosehead - please explain precisely why you believe that the council raising the lowest-paid workers onto the Living Wage - £7.65 per hour - is a bad thing?[/p][/quote]The Living wage as such will vary from one part of the country to the next from one city to the next. A company employing people in say Winchester & people in say Liverpool doing exactly the same job but both being on the living wage will end up with one group of employees earning less than another for doing the same job is that fair? Didn't the Unions fight against that? As far as I knew London was the exception to the rule but now if I was setting up a company in this country & only wanted to pay the Living wage I'd move to the area with the lowest wage now is that what Labour wants? Industry moving to Labours heart lands? Who's going to pay for this increase in the public sectors pay? People who've taken a pay cut to keep a job? Or are those council workers on the top level of pay going to take a pay cut to give the lower paid more?[/p][/quote]Excrement produced by the male of the bovine species. Linesman
  • Score: 1

6:52am Fri 1 Aug 14

aldermoorboy says...

Yes Loosehead I will be supporting Jeremy and Royston they are both decent honest men.

Linesman and Lone Ranger cannot face the fact the strikes were political, perhaps deep down they are ashamed and know the real caring party in Southampton are the Tories.
Yes Loosehead I will be supporting Jeremy and Royston they are both decent honest men. Linesman and Lone Ranger cannot face the fact the strikes were political, perhaps deep down they are ashamed and know the real caring party in Southampton are the Tories. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

8:41am Fri 1 Aug 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Yes Loosehead I will be supporting Jeremy and Royston they are both decent honest men.

Linesman and Lone Ranger cannot face the fact the strikes were political, perhaps deep down they are ashamed and know the real caring party in Southampton are the Tories.
He didnt say supporting them ..... he said delivering leaflets for them ..... slightly different i think .....
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Yes Loosehead I will be supporting Jeremy and Royston they are both decent honest men. Linesman and Lone Ranger cannot face the fact the strikes were political, perhaps deep down they are ashamed and know the real caring party in Southampton are the Tories.[/p][/quote]He didnt say supporting them ..... he said delivering leaflets for them ..... slightly different i think ..... Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

9:00am Fri 1 Aug 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Yes Loosehead I will be supporting Jeremy and Royston they are both decent honest men.

Linesman and Lone Ranger cannot face the fact the strikes were political, perhaps deep down they are ashamed and know the real caring party in Southampton are the Tories.
Of course they were political.

They were reacting to Political actions taken by Royston Smith & Co.

Are you claiming that Royston Smith & Co were Non-Political?
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Yes Loosehead I will be supporting Jeremy and Royston they are both decent honest men. Linesman and Lone Ranger cannot face the fact the strikes were political, perhaps deep down they are ashamed and know the real caring party in Southampton are the Tories.[/p][/quote]Of course they were political. They were reacting to Political actions taken by Royston Smith & Co. Are you claiming that Royston Smith & Co were Non-Political? Linesman
  • Score: -1

10:33am Fri 1 Aug 14

aldermoorboy says...

Yes Linesman, I am saying Royston was representing the people who voted for him and those that did not, he was trying to get a sensible deal for all but Labour/unions wanted conflict.
Lone Ranger yes I will deliver leaflets as I am sure you do for Labour.
Yes Linesman, I am saying Royston was representing the people who voted for him and those that did not, he was trying to get a sensible deal for all but Labour/unions wanted conflict. Lone Ranger yes I will deliver leaflets as I am sure you do for Labour. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -2

11:19am Fri 1 Aug 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Yes Linesman, I am saying Royston was representing the people who voted for him and those that did not, he was trying to get a sensible deal for all but Labour/unions wanted conflict.
Lone Ranger yes I will deliver leaflets as I am sure you do for Labour.
I think that you will get paid for doing that or so i reaad somewhere on this forum ...... or so i understand ... nice little earner for you .......
.
Of course you could donate it to the Tory funds ...... or do they only take it from Russian oil barons
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Yes Linesman, I am saying Royston was representing the people who voted for him and those that did not, he was trying to get a sensible deal for all but Labour/unions wanted conflict. Lone Ranger yes I will deliver leaflets as I am sure you do for Labour.[/p][/quote]I think that you will get paid for doing that or so i reaad somewhere on this forum ...... or so i understand ... nice little earner for you ....... . Of course you could donate it to the Tory funds ...... or do they only take it from Russian oil barons Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 3

11:55am Fri 1 Aug 14

aldermoorboy says...

Lone Ranger I leaflet for nothing for the Tories in Southampton because I believe they are a decent bunch who care for all in this town including you.
Have a good weekend.
Lone Ranger I leaflet for nothing for the Tories in Southampton because I believe they are a decent bunch who care for all in this town including you. Have a good weekend. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -4

12:15pm Fri 1 Aug 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Yes Loosehead I will be supporting Jeremy and Royston they are both decent honest men.

Linesman and Lone Ranger cannot face the fact the strikes were political, perhaps deep down they are ashamed and know the real caring party in Southampton are the Tories.
I am not a Tory - obviously! - but you're right that Jeremy is decent and honest. But if you want a view on whether Royston is decent, look on Youtube at the bitter and bile-laden speech he made after losing in 2010. And as for his honesty, his public record is there for all to see - a string of broken promises. 'Sea City Museum won't be a burden on the public purse' is a good start.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Yes Loosehead I will be supporting Jeremy and Royston they are both decent honest men. Linesman and Lone Ranger cannot face the fact the strikes were political, perhaps deep down they are ashamed and know the real caring party in Southampton are the Tories.[/p][/quote]I am not a Tory - obviously! - but you're right that Jeremy is decent and honest. But if you want a view on whether Royston is decent, look on Youtube at the bitter and bile-laden speech he made after losing in 2010. And as for his honesty, his public record is there for all to see - a string of broken promises. 'Sea City Museum won't be a burden on the public purse' is a good start. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 5

2:36pm Fri 1 Aug 14

southy says...

Lone you might find this interesting.

http://www.filmsfora
ction.org/watch/the_
shock_doctrine_2009/
#.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo
ok
Lone you might find this interesting. http://www.filmsfora ction.org/watch/the_ shock_doctrine_2009/ #.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo ok southy
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Yes Linesman, I am saying Royston was representing the people who voted for him and those that did not, he was trying to get a sensible deal for all but Labour/unions wanted conflict.
Lone Ranger yes I will deliver leaflets as I am sure you do for Labour.
The Unions were also representing the workers who democratically elected them to act on their behalf.
This, in normal circumstances, means that the Union will represent them in negotiations with their employers.
When the employer takes action without bothering to enter into negotiations, but instead informs the workforce what it is going to do - full stop, then you have seen the reaction.

With regard distributing leaflets.

You make sure that you take care of loosehead. Hold his hand and make sure that you look both ways when you cross the road.

I bet you make a lovely couple.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Yes Linesman, I am saying Royston was representing the people who voted for him and those that did not, he was trying to get a sensible deal for all but Labour/unions wanted conflict. Lone Ranger yes I will deliver leaflets as I am sure you do for Labour.[/p][/quote]The Unions were also representing the workers who democratically elected them to act on their behalf. This, in normal circumstances, means that the Union will represent them in negotiations with their employers. When the employer takes action without bothering to enter into negotiations, but instead informs the workforce what it is going to do - full stop, then you have seen the reaction. With regard distributing leaflets. You make sure that you take care of loosehead. Hold his hand and make sure that you look both ways when you cross the road. I bet you make a lovely couple. Linesman
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Linesman says...

southy wrote:
Lone you might find this interesting.

http://www.filmsfora

ction.org/watch/the_

shock_doctrine_2009/

#.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo

ok
I could not watch it all.

Horrific.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Lone you might find this interesting. http://www.filmsfora ction.org/watch/the_ shock_doctrine_2009/ #.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo ok[/p][/quote]I could not watch it all. Horrific. Linesman
  • Score: 2

3:13pm Fri 1 Aug 14

aldermoorboy says...

Linesman thank you for the sensible advice when crossing the road,have a good weekend.
Linesman thank you for the sensible advice when crossing the road,have a good weekend. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

4:07pm Fri 1 Aug 14

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone you might find this interesting.

http://www.filmsfora


ction.org/watch/the_


shock_doctrine_2009/


#.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo


ok
I could not watch it all.

Horrific.
Todays world is it not, Freeman was a regular to the Bilderberg meetings and gave speaches, he was present when Thatcher and Bush was at the Bilderberg Meeting.
Its a bit long 1 hour 18 mins but its worth the watch
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Lone you might find this interesting. http://www.filmsfora ction.org/watch/the_ shock_doctrine_2009/ #.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo ok[/p][/quote]I could not watch it all. Horrific.[/p][/quote]Todays world is it not, Freeman was a regular to the Bilderberg meetings and gave speaches, he was present when Thatcher and Bush was at the Bilderberg Meeting. Its a bit long 1 hour 18 mins but its worth the watch southy
  • Score: 1

4:30pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Lone Ranger. says...

southy wrote:
Lone you might find this interesting.

http://www.filmsfora

ction.org/watch/the_

shock_doctrine_2009/

#.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo

ok
Southy ..... very interesting indeed. Many thanks
.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Lone you might find this interesting. http://www.filmsfora ction.org/watch/the_ shock_doctrine_2009/ #.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo ok[/p][/quote]Southy ..... very interesting indeed. Many thanks . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

6:11pm Fri 1 Aug 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Yes Linesman, I am saying Royston was representing the people who voted for him and those that did not, he was trying to get a sensible deal for all but Labour/unions wanted conflict.
Lone Ranger yes I will deliver leaflets as I am sure you do for Labour.
The Unions were also representing the workers who democratically elected them to act on their behalf.
This, in normal circumstances, means that the Union will represent them in negotiations with their employers.
When the employer takes action without bothering to enter into negotiations, but instead informs the workforce what it is going to do - full stop, then you have seen the reaction.

With regard distributing leaflets.

You make sure that you take care of loosehead. Hold his hand and make sure that you look both ways when you cross the road.

I bet you make a lovely couple.
REALLY? they were supporting the workers? How many council workers are in the Unions?
Doesn't it show the majority aren't in the unions so they don't want the unions to speak for them?
The Union members are a minority of the work force & even then not all of them voted for Industrial action so what about the majority of the work force were they taken into consideration by the unions?
were the majority who signed up to the pay cuts as a way of saving jobs for the strikes?
Would the pickets have allowed non strikers to go to work & cross the picket line with out trying to intimidate them?
I've tried not to reply to your posts as I knew sooner or later I'd get my character assassinated by you but look at your post? male bovine? I think it's you that talks B++lsh++.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Yes Linesman, I am saying Royston was representing the people who voted for him and those that did not, he was trying to get a sensible deal for all but Labour/unions wanted conflict. Lone Ranger yes I will deliver leaflets as I am sure you do for Labour.[/p][/quote]The Unions were also representing the workers who democratically elected them to act on their behalf. This, in normal circumstances, means that the Union will represent them in negotiations with their employers. When the employer takes action without bothering to enter into negotiations, but instead informs the workforce what it is going to do - full stop, then you have seen the reaction. With regard distributing leaflets. You make sure that you take care of loosehead. Hold his hand and make sure that you look both ways when you cross the road. I bet you make a lovely couple.[/p][/quote]REALLY? they were supporting the workers? How many council workers are in the Unions? Doesn't it show the majority aren't in the unions so they don't want the unions to speak for them? The Union members are a minority of the work force & even then not all of them voted for Industrial action so what about the majority of the work force were they taken into consideration by the unions? were the majority who signed up to the pay cuts as a way of saving jobs for the strikes? Would the pickets have allowed non strikers to go to work & cross the picket line with out trying to intimidate them? I've tried not to reply to your posts as I knew sooner or later I'd get my character assassinated by you but look at your post? male bovine? I think it's you that talks B++lsh++. loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:13pm Fri 1 Aug 14

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone you might find this interesting.

http://www.filmsfora



ction.org/watch/the_



shock_doctrine_2009/



#.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo



ok
I could not watch it all.

Horrific.
Todays world is it not, Freeman was a regular to the Bilderberg meetings and gave speaches, he was present when Thatcher and Bush was at the Bilderberg Meeting.
Its a bit long 1 hour 18 mins but its worth the watch
Southy has it ever entered your head these two are your political opponents not just the Tories?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Lone you might find this interesting. http://www.filmsfora ction.org/watch/the_ shock_doctrine_2009/ #.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo ok[/p][/quote]I could not watch it all. Horrific.[/p][/quote]Todays world is it not, Freeman was a regular to the Bilderberg meetings and gave speaches, he was present when Thatcher and Bush was at the Bilderberg Meeting. Its a bit long 1 hour 18 mins but its worth the watch[/p][/quote]Southy has it ever entered your head these two are your political opponents not just the Tories? loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:27pm Fri 1 Aug 14

loosehead says...

Look at the lefts posts on here then look back at their defence of their candidate for Itchen a candidate who if she loses will be gone from this city.
Now think back to all the posters saying Roystons actions on the submarine were just a PR stunt by him & the posters who said that were proven wrong.
Now look at the Tory councils record, the tried 5 times to come to some sort of an agreement with the UInions even going to ACAS & until Cllr Williams let slip Labours plans if elected did those Unions actually go into talks.
Then all parties agreed the deal only for Labours pay masters to break the deal straight away why?
Royston said with the measures they'd taken only 80 council workers could/might face redundancy over the four years but if the pay cuts never took place there would be mass redundancies & he's been proven right.
Labour didn't contest the legal action by the Unions why not? didn't their paymasters want to lose face & be proven wrong?
No Labour used the monies set aside to pay compensation why?
Then they used the money we were in the black with to partially restore pay then cut services & jobs to restore the rest now they are taxing us just to give those workers pay rises why? why not use it to save services?
Jeremy & Royston are Like Nick Holmes & LeTissier they're here for good whilst Rowenna is a Lalana if she doesn't get what she wants she's off.
The Tories don't pay you to deliver leaflets but who paid for Union members from outside of this city to come here to Canvass & deliver leaflets on behalf of the Labour Party?
It's so funny how these two one a definite Labour Party member & the other one maybe more can only tell one side & attack any one who dares question their version of events .
SO COME ON JEREMY lets send Whiitehead back to his sleep as he takes no actions on behalf of this city.
(what chance a Labour Government if Scotland breaks away?)
Look at the lefts posts on here then look back at their defence of their candidate for Itchen a candidate who if she loses will be gone from this city. Now think back to all the posters saying Roystons actions on the submarine were just a PR stunt by him & the posters who said that were proven wrong. Now look at the Tory councils record, the tried 5 times to come to some sort of an agreement with the UInions even going to ACAS & until Cllr Williams let slip Labours plans if elected did those Unions actually go into talks. Then all parties agreed the deal only for Labours pay masters to break the deal straight away why? Royston said with the measures they'd taken only 80 council workers could/might face redundancy over the four years but if the pay cuts never took place there would be mass redundancies & he's been proven right. Labour didn't contest the legal action by the Unions why not? didn't their paymasters want to lose face & be proven wrong? No Labour used the monies set aside to pay compensation why? Then they used the money we were in the black with to partially restore pay then cut services & jobs to restore the rest now they are taxing us just to give those workers pay rises why? why not use it to save services? Jeremy & Royston are Like Nick Holmes & LeTissier they're here for good whilst Rowenna is a Lalana if she doesn't get what she wants she's off. The Tories don't pay you to deliver leaflets but who paid for Union members from outside of this city to come here to Canvass & deliver leaflets on behalf of the Labour Party? It's so funny how these two one a definite Labour Party member & the other one maybe more can only tell one side & attack any one who dares question their version of events . SO COME ON JEREMY lets send Whiitehead back to his sleep as he takes no actions on behalf of this city. (what chance a Labour Government if Scotland breaks away?) loosehead
  • Score: -1

7:06pm Fri 1 Aug 14

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone you might find this interesting.

http://www.filmsfora




ction.org/watch/the_




shock_doctrine_2009/




#.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo




ok
I could not watch it all.

Horrific.
Todays world is it not, Freeman was a regular to the Bilderberg meetings and gave speaches, he was present when Thatcher and Bush was at the Bilderberg Meeting.
Its a bit long 1 hour 18 mins but its worth the watch
Southy has it ever entered your head these two are your political opponents not just the Tories?
They all are but Labour is the lesser of the evils out off all political opponents even low they are 100% right wing.
You should know now Loose, Both Royston and Moulton are not going to make it, more so on the East side of Southampton for one UKIP will take a lot off there votes away, for two both Royston and Moulton could not do it in the last election when the Tory's was on a up, they will not do it when people want to get rid of this Tory government and the on a down. They still would not do it if the TUSC took half of Labour votes. You have a Labour Government weather if you like it or not in 2015.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Lone you might find this interesting. http://www.filmsfora ction.org/watch/the_ shock_doctrine_2009/ #.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo ok[/p][/quote]I could not watch it all. Horrific.[/p][/quote]Todays world is it not, Freeman was a regular to the Bilderberg meetings and gave speaches, he was present when Thatcher and Bush was at the Bilderberg Meeting. Its a bit long 1 hour 18 mins but its worth the watch[/p][/quote]Southy has it ever entered your head these two are your political opponents not just the Tories?[/p][/quote]They all are but Labour is the lesser of the evils out off all political opponents even low they are 100% right wing. You should know now Loose, Both Royston and Moulton are not going to make it, more so on the East side of Southampton for one UKIP will take a lot off there votes away, for two both Royston and Moulton could not do it in the last election when the Tory's was on a up, they will not do it when people want to get rid of this Tory government and the on a down. They still would not do it if the TUSC took half of Labour votes. You have a Labour Government weather if you like it or not in 2015. southy
  • Score: 0

7:08pm Fri 1 Aug 14

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone you might find this interesting.

http://www.filmsfora


ction.org/watch/the_


shock_doctrine_2009/


#.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo


ok
Southy ..... very interesting indeed. Many thanks
.
Your welcome did any one else watch it, it explains how we got here today.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Lone you might find this interesting. http://www.filmsfora ction.org/watch/the_ shock_doctrine_2009/ #.U9qSUT8QmYw.facebo ok[/p][/quote]Southy ..... very interesting indeed. Many thanks .[/p][/quote]Your welcome did any one else watch it, it explains how we got here today. southy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree