Would-be Southampton Itchen MP's referendum promise

Royston Smith is bidding to become Southampton Itchen MP.

Labour's Rowenna Davis is also bidding to be Southampton Itchen MP.

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

A HAMPSHIRE politician bidding to become Southampton Itchen MP says he will hold referendums with residents if he becomes an MP.

Conservative Royston Smith says that if he is elected in the General Election next May he will test public opinion on big issues by holding mini-referendums.

But his Labour opponent for the seat, Rowenna Davis, says the cash spent on referenda would be better spent on services in the city.

Cllr Smith, currently leader of the Conservative opposition at Southampton City Council, says the polls would not be binding but could influence new policies as well as providing residents with more involvement in political decisions.

He says issues such as hospital ward closures, overseas intervention or equal marriage are examples of where local referendums could help guide MPs.

Social media, local media like the Daily Echo and website-based voting would play a part in the polls.

He said: “If you seek to represent people then the best way to demonstrate that is to involve them.

“As a local Southampton man I understand this area, I understand the frustrations of people, many of whom I have known for most of my life. They routinely ask me, ‘what’s the point in voting?’.

“This idea seeks to address the feeling that voting and politics are pointless. If we are all given the opportunity to take part we must surely feel more engaged.”

“I will not be tied by the outcome of the referendums but those that take part will remember come election time which way I voted and which way they wanted me to vote.

“I will ensure everyone who takes part is told how I voted in the specific debate.

“They will then be able to use that information to make future voting decisions. It is simple and honest and really helps to bring decision making closer to the people.”

But Ms Davis said: “Listening to the views of local people and creating questionnaires and online polls is what every good MP should do. John Denham has been doing that for years.

“However, if Cllr Smith is going to introduce full-scale local referenda, then he should tell us who’s going to pay for it.

“The city council estimates it would cost Southampton residents over £20,000 for one referendum alone. Wouldn't that be better spent on schools, roads and health care?

“We already have polls showing how much people hated the tripling of tuition fees and £1 billion wasted on an unnecessary upheaval of the NHS.

“Cllr Smith didn’t stick up for Southampton against his party when he saw those figures, so I don’t see why wasting public money on more polls would make him change.”

But Cllr Smith says the cost would be “minimal”, as the polls would mainly be conducted electronically through media forms such as email, web and text.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:59am Tue 12 Aug 14

Lone Ranger. says...

The last "political" poll held on this Echo site was highjacked by a Tory activist ....... the same would happen if it was done via email, text or web access ........ unless of course you dont posess one of those forms of communication devices .....
.
..... and of course what is the point of it?
.
There will be no action taken on the polls, they will not inflence any decisions ( if they did half the politicians would already be gone ) and they will not be used to gain political opinion ......
.
And so what is the cost ? ...... Cllr Smith does not know ! Why ?? ..... is this another cost to the local or national taxpayer ..... or put it another way ...... Who is going to pay for this ....
.
Dont you think we have had enough of Tories flushing our money down the bog ...... and expecting us to pick up the bill ... again
.
Fortunately ....... he is not going to be the MP anyhow .... thank the Lord
The last "political" poll held on this Echo site was highjacked by a Tory activist ....... the same would happen if it was done via email, text or web access ........ unless of course you dont posess one of those forms of communication devices ..... . ..... and of course what is the point of it? . There will be no action taken on the polls, they will not inflence any decisions ( if they did half the politicians would already be gone ) and they will not be used to gain political opinion ...... . And so what is the cost ? ...... Cllr Smith does not know ! Why ?? ..... is this another cost to the local or national taxpayer ..... or put it another way ...... Who is going to pay for this .... . Dont you think we have had enough of Tories flushing our money down the bog ...... and expecting us to pick up the bill ... again . Fortunately ....... he is not going to be the MP anyhow .... thank the Lord Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

12:03pm Tue 12 Aug 14

southy says...

"But Cllr Smith says the cost would be “minimal”, as the polls would mainly be conducted electronically through media forms such as email, web and text. "

So Royston wants to leave out those who would vote against him, the poor who can not afford to have such luxurys as being connected to internet or any form of computors
"But Cllr Smith says the cost would be “minimal”, as the polls would mainly be conducted electronically through media forms such as email, web and text. " So Royston wants to leave out those who would vote against him, the poor who can not afford to have such luxurys as being connected to internet or any form of computors southy
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Tue 12 Aug 14

forest hump says...

Nonsense spin to attract votes. Even if it came to fruition, the results would have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Want-to-be MP's are basically all liars who will say anything to attract votes, knowing they have zero accountability. Clegg and University fees is a classic example. He should be kicked out for reneging on his promise.
Nonsense spin to attract votes. Even if it came to fruition, the results would have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Want-to-be MP's are basically all liars who will say anything to attract votes, knowing they have zero accountability. Clegg and University fees is a classic example. He should be kicked out for reneging on his promise. forest hump
  • Score: 2

1:41pm Tue 12 Aug 14

southy says...

The Government and most local councils are forcing people onto the internet, but are unwilling to pay for this luxury that many can not afford
The Government and most local councils are forcing people onto the internet, but are unwilling to pay for this luxury that many can not afford southy
  • Score: -2

2:11pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Linesman says...

Who would pay for these 'mini referendums'?

It certainly would not come from Royston Smith's pocket or Southampton Tory Party's coffers, but would, no doubt, be listed on his 'expenses', which means that we, the tax payers would foot the bill.

What happens if he does not like the result of the referendum?

He just ignores it because, as he has said, the result wold not be binding.

Another electioneering 'damp squib' from Royston Smith.
Who would pay for these 'mini referendums'? It certainly would not come from Royston Smith's pocket or Southampton Tory Party's coffers, but would, no doubt, be listed on his 'expenses', which means that we, the tax payers would foot the bill. What happens if he does not like the result of the referendum? He just ignores it because, as he has said, the result wold not be binding. Another electioneering 'damp squib' from Royston Smith. Linesman
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

As these days all three main parties (if you still count fast disappearing Lib-Dem as a political party and count UKIP as sect of Tories) have become very similar I don't think policies wise people will be expecting any major changes / developments from whoever replaces John Denham in Southampton Itchen.

Politically Denham may have been dodgy but as constituency MP he has been exceptionally good.

Whether you support John or oppose him, fair minded people can't deny that he is very intelligent person who tries his very best in helping with case work of his constituents. He will help everybody in their problems with pen pushers, even if somebody has openly campaigned against him he will not let pesron down, will always put in his best efforts.

So ordinary people will be expecting very high standard of service from their new MP. This is where Cllr. Smith may have better credentials than the lady NuLabour has imported from London.

As my religion is socialism, even if I lived in Itchen I WILL NOT support CLlr. Royston Smith because he is a Tory.

But as a socialist I have to be honest (unlike the fakes NuLabourites) and give the credit where due. Like John the Tory Cllr. Smith is also very good at dealing with individual cases of people he represents on local Council.

This is the quality he shares with Alan Lloyd whom NuLabour dropped as their rep in Harefield because he was not willing to stop standing by the people who'd elected him. (something Lloyd shares with Don Thomas and Keith Morrell of Coxford)

So hardly surprising that Cllr. Smith whom we on the left love to hate, has made Harefield a safe Tory ward. It may not be popular thing to say, with some colleagues on so called left, but if elected Royston Smith may also make Itchen safe for Tories.

I believe NuLabour has made a mistake by selecting the candidate who'd already acquired the reputation for false claims about who was supporting/endorsing
/backing her, which was very rightly exposed by hawk eyed Jouro of the Echo. She moved to Southampton without resigning her seat on a London Council, which can be viewed as having betrayed those who'd elected her and open to suspicion that she may do the same again. If that was not bad enough Rowenna Davis is hardly known for helping people in Southampton Itchen like John Denham.

To challenge Royston Smith the NuLabour ideally should have selected Alan LLOYD. But he was conveniently blocked by making Itchen women only contest.

Even then they had a chance to select local Cllr. Sarah Bogle who is also well respected for helping people, but they turned her down.

So the NuLabourites due to their own arrogance, mistakes or stupidity may turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread for Tory Cllr. Royston Smith. It may not be a bad idea for Cllr. Smith to send flowers with note of thanks for indirect support to local New Labour!
As these days all three main parties (if you still count fast disappearing Lib-Dem as a political party and count UKIP as sect of Tories) have become very similar I don't think policies wise people will be expecting any major changes / developments from whoever replaces John Denham in Southampton Itchen. Politically Denham may have been dodgy but as constituency MP he has been exceptionally good. Whether you support John or oppose him, fair minded people can't deny that he is very intelligent person who tries his very best in helping with case work of his constituents. He will help everybody in their problems with pen pushers, even if somebody has openly campaigned against him he will not let pesron down, will always put in his best efforts. So ordinary people will be expecting very high standard of service from their new MP. This is where Cllr. Smith may have better credentials than the lady NuLabour has imported from London. As my religion is socialism, even if I lived in Itchen I WILL NOT support CLlr. Royston Smith because he is a Tory. But as a socialist I have to be honest (unlike the fakes NuLabourites) and give the credit where due. Like John the Tory Cllr. Smith is also very good at dealing with individual cases of people he represents on local Council. This is the quality he shares with Alan Lloyd whom NuLabour dropped as their rep in Harefield because he was not willing to stop standing by the people who'd elected him. (something Lloyd shares with Don Thomas and Keith Morrell of Coxford) So hardly surprising that Cllr. Smith whom we on the left love to hate, has made Harefield a safe Tory ward. It may not be popular thing to say, with some colleagues on so called left, but if elected Royston Smith may also make Itchen safe for Tories. I believe NuLabour has made a mistake by selecting the candidate who'd already acquired the reputation for false claims about who was supporting/endorsing /backing her, which was very rightly exposed by hawk eyed Jouro of the Echo. She moved to Southampton without resigning her seat on a London Council, which can be viewed as having betrayed those who'd elected her and open to suspicion that she may do the same again. If that was not bad enough Rowenna Davis is hardly known for helping people in Southampton Itchen like John Denham. To challenge Royston Smith the NuLabour ideally should have selected Alan LLOYD. But he was conveniently blocked by making Itchen women only contest. Even then they had a chance to select local Cllr. Sarah Bogle who is also well respected for helping people, but they turned her down. So the NuLabourites due to their own arrogance, mistakes or stupidity may turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread for Tory Cllr. Royston Smith. It may not be a bad idea for Cllr. Smith to send flowers with note of thanks for indirect support to local New Labour! Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: -6

2:33pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
As these days all three main parties (if you still count fast disappearing Lib-Dem as a political party and count UKIP as sect of Tories) have become very similar I don't think policies wise people will be expecting any major changes / developments from whoever replaces John Denham in Southampton Itchen.

Politically Denham may have been dodgy but as constituency MP he has been exceptionally good.

Whether you support John or oppose him, fair minded people can't deny that he is very intelligent person who tries his very best in helping with case work of his constituents. He will help everybody in their problems with pen pushers, even if somebody has openly campaigned against him he will not let pesron down, will always put in his best efforts.

So ordinary people will be expecting very high standard of service from their new MP. This is where Cllr. Smith may have better credentials than the lady NuLabour has imported from London.

As my religion is socialism, even if I lived in Itchen I WILL NOT support CLlr. Royston Smith because he is a Tory.

But as a socialist I have to be honest (unlike the fakes NuLabourites) and give the credit where due. Like John the Tory Cllr. Smith is also very good at dealing with individual cases of people he represents on local Council.

This is the quality he shares with Alan Lloyd whom NuLabour dropped as their rep in Harefield because he was not willing to stop standing by the people who'd elected him. (something Lloyd shares with Don Thomas and Keith Morrell of Coxford)

So hardly surprising that Cllr. Smith whom we on the left love to hate, has made Harefield a safe Tory ward. It may not be popular thing to say, with some colleagues on so called left, but if elected Royston Smith may also make Itchen safe for Tories.

I believe NuLabour has made a mistake by selecting the candidate who'd already acquired the reputation for false claims about who was supporting/endorsing

/backing her, which was very rightly exposed by hawk eyed Jouro of the Echo. She moved to Southampton without resigning her seat on a London Council, which can be viewed as having betrayed those who'd elected her and open to suspicion that she may do the same again. If that was not bad enough Rowenna Davis is hardly known for helping people in Southampton Itchen like John Denham.

To challenge Royston Smith the NuLabour ideally should have selected Alan LLOYD. But he was conveniently blocked by making Itchen women only contest.

Even then they had a chance to select local Cllr. Sarah Bogle who is also well respected for helping people, but they turned her down.

So the NuLabourites due to their own arrogance, mistakes or stupidity may turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread for Tory Cllr. Royston Smith. It may not be a bad idea for Cllr. Smith to send flowers with note of thanks for indirect support to local New Labour!
I think that Cllr Smith will be sending you a bunch of flowers with a note of thanks for your indirect support to a Tory candidate .... !!
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: As these days all three main parties (if you still count fast disappearing Lib-Dem as a political party and count UKIP as sect of Tories) have become very similar I don't think policies wise people will be expecting any major changes / developments from whoever replaces John Denham in Southampton Itchen. Politically Denham may have been dodgy but as constituency MP he has been exceptionally good. Whether you support John or oppose him, fair minded people can't deny that he is very intelligent person who tries his very best in helping with case work of his constituents. He will help everybody in their problems with pen pushers, even if somebody has openly campaigned against him he will not let pesron down, will always put in his best efforts. So ordinary people will be expecting very high standard of service from their new MP. This is where Cllr. Smith may have better credentials than the lady NuLabour has imported from London. As my religion is socialism, even if I lived in Itchen I WILL NOT support CLlr. Royston Smith because he is a Tory. But as a socialist I have to be honest (unlike the fakes NuLabourites) and give the credit where due. Like John the Tory Cllr. Smith is also very good at dealing with individual cases of people he represents on local Council. This is the quality he shares with Alan Lloyd whom NuLabour dropped as their rep in Harefield because he was not willing to stop standing by the people who'd elected him. (something Lloyd shares with Don Thomas and Keith Morrell of Coxford) So hardly surprising that Cllr. Smith whom we on the left love to hate, has made Harefield a safe Tory ward. It may not be popular thing to say, with some colleagues on so called left, but if elected Royston Smith may also make Itchen safe for Tories. I believe NuLabour has made a mistake by selecting the candidate who'd already acquired the reputation for false claims about who was supporting/endorsing /backing her, which was very rightly exposed by hawk eyed Jouro of the Echo. She moved to Southampton without resigning her seat on a London Council, which can be viewed as having betrayed those who'd elected her and open to suspicion that she may do the same again. If that was not bad enough Rowenna Davis is hardly known for helping people in Southampton Itchen like John Denham. To challenge Royston Smith the NuLabour ideally should have selected Alan LLOYD. But he was conveniently blocked by making Itchen women only contest. Even then they had a chance to select local Cllr. Sarah Bogle who is also well respected for helping people, but they turned her down. So the NuLabourites due to their own arrogance, mistakes or stupidity may turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread for Tory Cllr. Royston Smith. It may not be a bad idea for Cllr. Smith to send flowers with note of thanks for indirect support to local New Labour![/p][/quote]I think that Cllr Smith will be sending you a bunch of flowers with a note of thanks for your indirect support to a Tory candidate .... !! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

2:35pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Linesman wrote:
Who would pay for these 'mini referendums'?

It certainly would not come from Royston Smith's pocket or Southampton Tory Party's coffers, but would, no doubt, be listed on his 'expenses', which means that we, the tax payers would foot the bill.

What happens if he does not like the result of the referendum?

He just ignores it because, as he has said, the result wold not be binding.

Another electioneering 'damp squib' from Royston Smith.
At least Smith is honest enough to say he will ignore it, pity NuLabour's Blair and Brown were not honest when they promised the nation vote on EU after Lisbon in their manifesto?

Yes any attack on Tories will always be music of people like me who have faith in real old Labour values, but with what the new look party mostly dominated by traitors is doing there will always be danger of boomerangs.

Any way at least some of you are trying to hold the fort against Thatcher's children. So thanks for staying the current political version of 'charge of Light Brigade'. My cloth cap off for that!!!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Who would pay for these 'mini referendums'? It certainly would not come from Royston Smith's pocket or Southampton Tory Party's coffers, but would, no doubt, be listed on his 'expenses', which means that we, the tax payers would foot the bill. What happens if he does not like the result of the referendum? He just ignores it because, as he has said, the result wold not be binding. Another electioneering 'damp squib' from Royston Smith.[/p][/quote]At least Smith is honest enough to say he will ignore it, pity NuLabour's Blair and Brown were not honest when they promised the nation vote on EU after Lisbon in their manifesto? Yes any attack on Tories will always be music of people like me who have faith in real old Labour values, but with what the new look party mostly dominated by traitors is doing there will always be danger of boomerangs. Any way at least some of you are trying to hold the fort against Thatcher's children. So thanks for staying the current political version of 'charge of Light Brigade'. My cloth cap off for that!!! Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 1

2:41pm Tue 12 Aug 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Smith has simply adopted a UKIP policy here. It shows he is afraid of losing votes to them. MPs should be sufficiently in touch with their electorate not to require this gimmick. The way the House of Commons voted over Syria recently shows that it can still represent the will of the people and the mood of the country. And MPs should provide a lead, not just slavishly follow. Otherwise we would end up with government by TV phone-in.
Smith has simply adopted a UKIP policy here. It shows he is afraid of losing votes to them. MPs should be sufficiently in touch with their electorate not to require this gimmick. The way the House of Commons voted over Syria recently shows that it can still represent the will of the people and the mood of the country. And MPs should provide a lead, not just slavishly follow. Otherwise we would end up with government by TV phone-in. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 5

2:46pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
As these days all three main parties (if you still count fast disappearing Lib-Dem as a political party and count UKIP as sect of Tories) have become very similar I don't think policies wise people will be expecting any major changes / developments from whoever replaces John Denham in Southampton Itchen.

Politically Denham may have been dodgy but as constituency MP he has been exceptionally good.

Whether you support John or oppose him, fair minded people can't deny that he is very intelligent person who tries his very best in helping with case work of his constituents. He will help everybody in their problems with pen pushers, even if somebody has openly campaigned against him he will not let pesron down, will always put in his best efforts.

So ordinary people will be expecting very high standard of service from their new MP. This is where Cllr. Smith may have better credentials than the lady NuLabour has imported from London.

As my religion is socialism, even if I lived in Itchen I WILL NOT support CLlr. Royston Smith because he is a Tory.

But as a socialist I have to be honest (unlike the fakes NuLabourites) and give the credit where due. Like John the Tory Cllr. Smith is also very good at dealing with individual cases of people he represents on local Council.

This is the quality he shares with Alan Lloyd whom NuLabour dropped as their rep in Harefield because he was not willing to stop standing by the people who'd elected him. (something Lloyd shares with Don Thomas and Keith Morrell of Coxford)

So hardly surprising that Cllr. Smith whom we on the left love to hate, has made Harefield a safe Tory ward. It may not be popular thing to say, with some colleagues on so called left, but if elected Royston Smith may also make Itchen safe for Tories.

I believe NuLabour has made a mistake by selecting the candidate who'd already acquired the reputation for false claims about who was supporting/endorsing


/backing her, which was very rightly exposed by hawk eyed Jouro of the Echo. She moved to Southampton without resigning her seat on a London Council, which can be viewed as having betrayed those who'd elected her and open to suspicion that she may do the same again. If that was not bad enough Rowenna Davis is hardly known for helping people in Southampton Itchen like John Denham.

To challenge Royston Smith the NuLabour ideally should have selected Alan LLOYD. But he was conveniently blocked by making Itchen women only contest.

Even then they had a chance to select local Cllr. Sarah Bogle who is also well respected for helping people, but they turned her down.

So the NuLabourites due to their own arrogance, mistakes or stupidity may turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread for Tory Cllr. Royston Smith. It may not be a bad idea for Cllr. Smith to send flowers with note of thanks for indirect support to local New Labour!
I think that Cllr Smith will be sending you a bunch of flowers with a note of thanks for your indirect support to a Tory candidate .... !!
But I will only accept if delivered by member of a trade union.

Also because I am a socialist the anti unions Tory is more likely to hide explosives in those flowers. Remember what was done to Rajiv Gandhi?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: As these days all three main parties (if you still count fast disappearing Lib-Dem as a political party and count UKIP as sect of Tories) have become very similar I don't think policies wise people will be expecting any major changes / developments from whoever replaces John Denham in Southampton Itchen. Politically Denham may have been dodgy but as constituency MP he has been exceptionally good. Whether you support John or oppose him, fair minded people can't deny that he is very intelligent person who tries his very best in helping with case work of his constituents. He will help everybody in their problems with pen pushers, even if somebody has openly campaigned against him he will not let pesron down, will always put in his best efforts. So ordinary people will be expecting very high standard of service from their new MP. This is where Cllr. Smith may have better credentials than the lady NuLabour has imported from London. As my religion is socialism, even if I lived in Itchen I WILL NOT support CLlr. Royston Smith because he is a Tory. But as a socialist I have to be honest (unlike the fakes NuLabourites) and give the credit where due. Like John the Tory Cllr. Smith is also very good at dealing with individual cases of people he represents on local Council. This is the quality he shares with Alan Lloyd whom NuLabour dropped as their rep in Harefield because he was not willing to stop standing by the people who'd elected him. (something Lloyd shares with Don Thomas and Keith Morrell of Coxford) So hardly surprising that Cllr. Smith whom we on the left love to hate, has made Harefield a safe Tory ward. It may not be popular thing to say, with some colleagues on so called left, but if elected Royston Smith may also make Itchen safe for Tories. I believe NuLabour has made a mistake by selecting the candidate who'd already acquired the reputation for false claims about who was supporting/endorsing /backing her, which was very rightly exposed by hawk eyed Jouro of the Echo. She moved to Southampton without resigning her seat on a London Council, which can be viewed as having betrayed those who'd elected her and open to suspicion that she may do the same again. If that was not bad enough Rowenna Davis is hardly known for helping people in Southampton Itchen like John Denham. To challenge Royston Smith the NuLabour ideally should have selected Alan LLOYD. But he was conveniently blocked by making Itchen women only contest. Even then they had a chance to select local Cllr. Sarah Bogle who is also well respected for helping people, but they turned her down. So the NuLabourites due to their own arrogance, mistakes or stupidity may turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread for Tory Cllr. Royston Smith. It may not be a bad idea for Cllr. Smith to send flowers with note of thanks for indirect support to local New Labour![/p][/quote]I think that Cllr Smith will be sending you a bunch of flowers with a note of thanks for your indirect support to a Tory candidate .... !![/p][/quote]But I will only accept if delivered by member of a trade union. Also because I am a socialist the anti unions Tory is more likely to hide explosives in those flowers. Remember what was done to Rajiv Gandhi? Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: -2

2:46pm Tue 12 Aug 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

More thought needs to be given to the cost and purpose of a referendum. Rowenna Davis vastly underestimates the cost of these; one of the reasons our Councillors are reluctant to hold a referendum on an increase in Council Tax above 1.99% (as required by Eric Pickles) is the £300,000 cost - money which could be better used on keeping open libraries, Sure Start centres etc.

Apart from who should pay for referenda, people also need to consider what wording should be used when framing a referendum question and who should decide this. For example, if those people in Southampton likely to benefit from a fluoridation scheme are consulted via a referendum, Public Health England (whose scheme it is) would be expected to (a) pay for it (b) set the question(s) and (c) interpret the results. I can hear the squawks now.

I like the idea of referenda for certain important issues and am a little jealous of my Caledonian cousins who will shortly be given a say on their constitution.

I wonder if our own Council leaders have the courage to support a referendum on whether we should have an elected Mayor for the City instead of the current cabinet system of local government; if not the good people of Southampton can insist on one provided they get the necessary 9,000 signatures from local electors.
More thought needs to be given to the cost and purpose of a referendum. Rowenna Davis vastly underestimates the cost of these; one of the reasons our Councillors are reluctant to hold a referendum on an increase in Council Tax above 1.99% (as required by Eric Pickles) is the £300,000 cost - money which could be better used on keeping open libraries, Sure Start centres etc. Apart from who should pay for referenda, people also need to consider what wording should be used when framing a referendum question and who should decide this. For example, if those people in Southampton likely to benefit from a fluoridation scheme are consulted via a referendum, Public Health England (whose scheme it is) would be expected to (a) pay for it (b) set the question(s) and (c) interpret the results. I can hear the squawks now. I like the idea of referenda for certain important issues and am a little jealous of my Caledonian cousins who will shortly be given a say on their constitution. I wonder if our own Council leaders have the courage to support a referendum on whether we should have an elected Mayor for the City instead of the current cabinet system of local government; if not the good people of Southampton can insist on one provided they get the necessary 9,000 signatures from local electors. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -1

2:51pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Smith has simply adopted a UKIP policy here. It shows he is afraid of losing votes to them. MPs should be sufficiently in touch with their electorate not to require this gimmick. The way the House of Commons voted over Syria recently shows that it can still represent the will of the people and the mood of the country. And MPs should provide a lead, not just slavishly follow. Otherwise we would end up with government by TV phone-in.
Very true.

Anyway they may pretend to be different but in reality UKIP and Tories are two wings of the same vulture.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: Smith has simply adopted a UKIP policy here. It shows he is afraid of losing votes to them. MPs should be sufficiently in touch with their electorate not to require this gimmick. The way the House of Commons voted over Syria recently shows that it can still represent the will of the people and the mood of the country. And MPs should provide a lead, not just slavishly follow. Otherwise we would end up with government by TV phone-in.[/p][/quote]Very true. Anyway they may pretend to be different but in reality UKIP and Tories are two wings of the same vulture. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: -5

3:33pm Tue 12 Aug 14

aldermoorboy says...

Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.
Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -3

5:43pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Maine Lobster says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.
Yawn,yawn,yawn.Come up with some new claptrap for a change.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.[/p][/quote]Yawn,yawn,yawn.Come up with some new claptrap for a change. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 3

6:21pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Ronnie G says...

The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices.
Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'...
The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum.
So What happened then???
WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....
The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices. Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'... The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum. So What happened then??? WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge.... Ronnie G
  • Score: 2

7:05pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Ronnie G says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Smith has simply adopted a UKIP policy here. It shows he is afraid of losing votes to them. MPs should be sufficiently in touch with their electorate not to require this gimmick. The way the House of Commons voted over Syria recently shows that it can still represent the will of the people and the mood of the country. And MPs should provide a lead, not just slavishly follow. Otherwise we would end up with government by TV phone-in.
I believe Prospective candidates for any MP seats should be sufficiently in touch with their electorate not to require any gimmick, and at the very least I would also expect them to be sufficiently and reliably informed concerning issues with their electorate instead of appearing to just slavishly follow like Rowenna Davis....
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: Smith has simply adopted a UKIP policy here. It shows he is afraid of losing votes to them. MPs should be sufficiently in touch with their electorate not to require this gimmick. The way the House of Commons voted over Syria recently shows that it can still represent the will of the people and the mood of the country. And MPs should provide a lead, not just slavishly follow. Otherwise we would end up with government by TV phone-in.[/p][/quote]I believe Prospective candidates for any MP seats should be sufficiently in touch with their electorate not to require any gimmick, and at the very least I would also expect them to be sufficiently and reliably informed concerning issues with their electorate instead of appearing to just slavishly follow like Rowenna Davis.... Ronnie G
  • Score: 2

7:22pm Tue 12 Aug 14

southy says...

Ronnie G wrote:
The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices.
Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'...
The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum.
So What happened then???
WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....
Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices. Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'... The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum. So What happened then??? WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....[/p][/quote]Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum. southy
  • Score: -1

9:19pm Tue 12 Aug 14

bullsbags says...

southy wrote:
The Government and most local councils are forcing people onto the internet, but are unwilling to pay for this luxury that many can not afford
The poor DONT MAKE ME LAUGH
Most of the so called poor have more electronic gadgets than the so called rich and I'll tell you why THEY ARE PAID FOR WITH BENEFITS unlike the so called rich who have things like council tax housing electric gas and a thing called income tax which incidentally pays for the gadgets for the so called poor in an indirect way
RANT OVER
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The Government and most local councils are forcing people onto the internet, but are unwilling to pay for this luxury that many can not afford[/p][/quote]The poor DONT MAKE ME LAUGH Most of the so called poor have more electronic gadgets than the so called rich and I'll tell you why THEY ARE PAID FOR WITH BENEFITS unlike the so called rich who have things like council tax housing electric gas and a thing called income tax which incidentally pays for the gadgets for the so called poor in an indirect way RANT OVER bullsbags
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Tue 12 Aug 14

forest hump says...

bullsbags wrote:
southy wrote:
The Government and most local councils are forcing people onto the internet, but are unwilling to pay for this luxury that many can not afford
The poor DONT MAKE ME LAUGH
Most of the so called poor have more electronic gadgets than the so called rich and I'll tell you why THEY ARE PAID FOR WITH BENEFITS unlike the so called rich who have things like council tax housing electric gas and a thing called income tax which incidentally pays for the gadgets for the so called poor in an indirect way
RANT OVER
Benefits should be awarded as vouchers. No more booze, fags, scratch cards, bookies, and, and, and. Why should the taxpayers subsidise all this nonsense? Oh, and child allowance should also be food and clothing vouchers.
[quote][p][bold]bullsbags[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The Government and most local councils are forcing people onto the internet, but are unwilling to pay for this luxury that many can not afford[/p][/quote]The poor DONT MAKE ME LAUGH Most of the so called poor have more electronic gadgets than the so called rich and I'll tell you why THEY ARE PAID FOR WITH BENEFITS unlike the so called rich who have things like council tax housing electric gas and a thing called income tax which incidentally pays for the gadgets for the so called poor in an indirect way RANT OVER[/p][/quote]Benefits should be awarded as vouchers. No more booze, fags, scratch cards, bookies, and, and, and. Why should the taxpayers subsidise all this nonsense? Oh, and child allowance should also be food and clothing vouchers. forest hump
  • Score: 3

12:25am Wed 13 Aug 14

Ronnie G says...

southy wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices.
Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'...
The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum.
So What happened then???
WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....
Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.
No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it..
The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law.
We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever...
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices. Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'... The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum. So What happened then??? WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....[/p][/quote]Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.[/p][/quote]No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it.. The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law. We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever... Ronnie G
  • Score: 1

12:32am Wed 13 Aug 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Ronnie G wrote:
southy wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices.
Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'...
The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum.
So What happened then???
WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....
Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.
No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it..
The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law.
We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever...
The 'truth' is there for anyone who wants to observe it. Why don't you go along to a Council meeting and sit in the public gallery? And read the minutes and agenda of all the committees, which are completely transparent and on the Council website. You'll quickly realise 2 things. (1) The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on and (2) the City has been brutally starved of cash from central government and there are tough, tough choices to be made as to how to spend what little money there is. And it doesn't go on Councillors. Their basic allowance is £10K. People seem to think there's a gravy train - there is not.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices. Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'... The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum. So What happened then??? WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....[/p][/quote]Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.[/p][/quote]No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it.. The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law. We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever...[/p][/quote]The 'truth' is there for anyone who wants to observe it. Why don't you go along to a Council meeting and sit in the public gallery? And read the minutes and agenda of all the committees, which are completely transparent and on the Council website. You'll quickly realise 2 things. (1) The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on and (2) the City has been brutally starved of cash from central government and there are tough, tough choices to be made as to how to spend what little money there is. And it doesn't go on Councillors. Their basic allowance is £10K. People seem to think there's a gravy train - there is not. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 4

8:05am Wed 13 Aug 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.
Yawn,yawn,yawn.Come up with some new claptrap for a change.
Still no facts to back up this wild assertion.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.[/p][/quote]Yawn,yawn,yawn.Come up with some new claptrap for a change.[/p][/quote]Still no facts to back up this wild assertion. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

8:29am Wed 13 Aug 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.
How much has been paid to the Unions?

As you appear to be the only one who claims that this is happening, then you must have the information.

I have always understood it to be that the Unions make contributions TO Labour Party funds. Perhaps you could explain why the Labour Party has been giving it back?

Next you will be asking us to believe that the Tory Party is returning contributions that it has received from their pals in the city.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.[/p][/quote]How much has been paid to the Unions? As you appear to be the only one who claims that this is happening, then you must have the information. I have always understood it to be that the Unions make contributions TO Labour Party funds. Perhaps you could explain why the Labour Party has been giving it back? Next you will be asking us to believe that the Tory Party is returning contributions that it has received from their pals in the city. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:38am Wed 13 Aug 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.
How much has been paid to the Unions?

As you appear to be the only one who claims that this is happening, then you must have the information.

I have always understood it to be that the Unions make contributions TO Labour Party funds. Perhaps you could explain why the Labour Party has been giving it back?

Next you will be asking us to believe that the Tory Party is returning contributions that it has received from their pals in the city.
As on numerous occasions when you have questioed his statement there has never been a response ....
.
Not a great surprise is it
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.[/p][/quote]How much has been paid to the Unions? As you appear to be the only one who claims that this is happening, then you must have the information. I have always understood it to be that the Unions make contributions TO Labour Party funds. Perhaps you could explain why the Labour Party has been giving it back? Next you will be asking us to believe that the Tory Party is returning contributions that it has received from their pals in the city.[/p][/quote]As on numerous occasions when you have questioed his statement there has never been a response .... . Not a great surprise is it Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

11:32am Wed 13 Aug 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.
How much has been paid to the Unions?

As you appear to be the only one who claims that this is happening, then you must have the information.

I have always understood it to be that the Unions make contributions TO Labour Party funds. Perhaps you could explain why the Labour Party has been giving it back?

Next you will be asking us to believe that the Tory Party is returning contributions that it has received from their pals in the city.
City's lot are not the only ones donating to Tories for letting them do whatever they like, including financial crisis. The Nasty Party also receives massive amounts from Russian oligarchs and charges from their wives for playing certain types of games with them. Plus from super rich multi billionaires who have fortunes made out of exploiting UK but avoid paying tax by moving their money to various tax havens.

You will never get anti trade unions brigade to object to any of that and admit that they are tightly controlled by likes of Cashcroft. So stop wasting your time requesting Tory supporters for information
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Stop paying the unions, that would pay for it with money over.[/p][/quote]How much has been paid to the Unions? As you appear to be the only one who claims that this is happening, then you must have the information. I have always understood it to be that the Unions make contributions TO Labour Party funds. Perhaps you could explain why the Labour Party has been giving it back? Next you will be asking us to believe that the Tory Party is returning contributions that it has received from their pals in the city.[/p][/quote]City's lot are not the only ones donating to Tories for letting them do whatever they like, including financial crisis. The Nasty Party also receives massive amounts from Russian oligarchs and charges from their wives for playing certain types of games with them. Plus from super rich multi billionaires who have fortunes made out of exploiting UK but avoid paying tax by moving their money to various tax havens. You will never get anti trade unions brigade to object to any of that and admit that they are tightly controlled by likes of Cashcroft. So stop wasting your time requesting Tory supporters for information Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

11:54am Wed 13 Aug 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
southy wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices.
Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'...
The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum.
So What happened then???
WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....
Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.
No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it..
The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law.
We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever...
The 'truth' is there for anyone who wants to observe it. Why don't you go along to a Council meeting and sit in the public gallery? And read the minutes and agenda of all the committees, which are completely transparent and on the Council website. You'll quickly realise 2 things. (1) The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on and (2) the City has been brutally starved of cash from central government and there are tough, tough choices to be made as to how to spend what little money there is. And it doesn't go on Councillors. Their basic allowance is £10K. People seem to think there's a gravy train - there is not.
Nice to know that for a change somebody is telling the truth by disclosing that "The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on"

How can that be possible?...........
..........
Because the Labour Party is not what it was and pretends to be, the traitors of working class and closet Conservatives have hijacked the old party and changed it into NuLabour, which in reality is unofficial right wing of the Tories.

That is why next election on paper Southampton Itchen may have one Labour and one Tory candidate but in reality people will have to vote for a real Tory or a fake Tory pretending to be The Labour Party candidate. Or they may have yet another version of Tories as UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices. Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'... The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum. So What happened then??? WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....[/p][/quote]Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.[/p][/quote]No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it.. The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law. We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever...[/p][/quote]The 'truth' is there for anyone who wants to observe it. Why don't you go along to a Council meeting and sit in the public gallery? And read the minutes and agenda of all the committees, which are completely transparent and on the Council website. You'll quickly realise 2 things. (1) The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on and (2) the City has been brutally starved of cash from central government and there are tough, tough choices to be made as to how to spend what little money there is. And it doesn't go on Councillors. Their basic allowance is £10K. People seem to think there's a gravy train - there is not.[/p][/quote]Nice to know that for a change somebody is telling the truth by disclosing that "The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on" How can that be possible?........... .......... Because the Labour Party is not what it was and pretends to be, the traitors of working class and closet Conservatives have hijacked the old party and changed it into NuLabour, which in reality is unofficial right wing of the Tories. That is why next election on paper Southampton Itchen may have one Labour and one Tory candidate but in reality people will have to vote for a real Tory or a fake Tory pretending to be The Labour Party candidate. Or they may have yet another version of Tories as UKIP. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 1

1:43pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
southy wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices.
Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'...
The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum.
So What happened then???
WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....
Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.
No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it..
The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law.
We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever...
The 'truth' is there for anyone who wants to observe it. Why don't you go along to a Council meeting and sit in the public gallery? And read the minutes and agenda of all the committees, which are completely transparent and on the Council website. You'll quickly realise 2 things. (1) The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on and (2) the City has been brutally starved of cash from central government and there are tough, tough choices to be made as to how to spend what little money there is. And it doesn't go on Councillors. Their basic allowance is £10K. People seem to think there's a gravy train - there is not.
Nice to know that for a change somebody is telling the truth by disclosing that "The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on"

How can that be possible?...........

..........
Because the Labour Party is not what it was and pretends to be, the traitors of working class and closet Conservatives have hijacked the old party and changed it into NuLabour, which in reality is unofficial right wing of the Tories.

That is why next election on paper Southampton Itchen may have one Labour and one Tory candidate but in reality people will have to vote for a real Tory or a fake Tory pretending to be The Labour Party candidate. Or they may have yet another version of Tories as UKIP.
......... and let us know which one you will be canvassing for please !!!
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices. Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'... The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum. So What happened then??? WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....[/p][/quote]Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.[/p][/quote]No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it.. The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law. We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever...[/p][/quote]The 'truth' is there for anyone who wants to observe it. Why don't you go along to a Council meeting and sit in the public gallery? And read the minutes and agenda of all the committees, which are completely transparent and on the Council website. You'll quickly realise 2 things. (1) The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on and (2) the City has been brutally starved of cash from central government and there are tough, tough choices to be made as to how to spend what little money there is. And it doesn't go on Councillors. Their basic allowance is £10K. People seem to think there's a gravy train - there is not.[/p][/quote]Nice to know that for a change somebody is telling the truth by disclosing that "The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on" How can that be possible?........... .......... Because the Labour Party is not what it was and pretends to be, the traitors of working class and closet Conservatives have hijacked the old party and changed it into NuLabour, which in reality is unofficial right wing of the Tories. That is why next election on paper Southampton Itchen may have one Labour and one Tory candidate but in reality people will have to vote for a real Tory or a fake Tory pretending to be The Labour Party candidate. Or they may have yet another version of Tories as UKIP.[/p][/quote]......... and let us know which one you will be canvassing for please !!! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

2:43pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
southy wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices.
Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'...
The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum.
So What happened then???
WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....
Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.
No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it..
The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law.
We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever...
The 'truth' is there for anyone who wants to observe it. Why don't you go along to a Council meeting and sit in the public gallery? And read the minutes and agenda of all the committees, which are completely transparent and on the Council website. You'll quickly realise 2 things. (1) The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on and (2) the City has been brutally starved of cash from central government and there are tough, tough choices to be made as to how to spend what little money there is. And it doesn't go on Councillors. Their basic allowance is £10K. People seem to think there's a gravy train - there is not.
Nice to know that for a change somebody is telling the truth by disclosing that "The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on"

How can that be possible?...........


..........
Because the Labour Party is not what it was and pretends to be, the traitors of working class and closet Conservatives have hijacked the old party and changed it into NuLabour, which in reality is unofficial right wing of the Tories.

That is why next election on paper Southampton Itchen may have one Labour and one Tory candidate but in reality people will have to vote for a real Tory or a fake Tory pretending to be The Labour Party candidate. Or they may have yet another version of Tories as UKIP.
......... and let us know which one you will be canvassing for please !!!
Dear LR,
As it is I live in Southampton Test, and hope Alan Whitead will still be one of the candidates. If his team asks me to help I will certainly do what I can.

Like John Denham he too works hard for ALL his constituents, unlike John Alan is politically more reliable even if you disagree with him he won't try to be agreeing with you but then do something else and doesn't get involved in conspiring or back stabbing fellow party members. What is even more important brain wise Alan is exceptionally great and has always been very serious environmentalist.

Last one for me in very important, so I fail to work out that assuming Whitehead will be candidate why the Green Party has decided to contest Soton Test, and that too with Angela Mowle, whom I knew when she was Labour Councillor (unfortunately our colleague) Had poor opinion of her reliability then which has not changed, and what has she contributed towards campaign to save environment bar joining Green Party for political opportunism?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: The comments from Rowenna Davis confirm to me that she is not fully up to speed with her Labour colleagues both inside and outside the council offices. Only a couple of years back in 2012 did the newly elected Council Labour Leader Cllr Richard Williams publicly state that he was going to give the residents of SOuthampton a chance to vote on the planned Biomass project by bringing in a referendum. He also said at the time that the referendum was part of an 'election pledge from Labour to do more to engage and enthuse the electorate in local democracy'... The Labour council also approved the use of £5k from council funds for the referendum. So What happened then??? WE ENDED UP WITH NO REFERENDUM AND WE STILL GOT STUNG FOR THE COSTS!!! Our Labour council decided in late 2012 they'd SCRAP the referendum. They also decided to charge us residents the £75k they'd wasted on this for the priviledge....[/p][/quote]Theres a bit more to that and why the Referendum never happen, the Tory government stop it from happening, If we wanted a referendum on the matter of the Bio-mass we had to pay the full amount as it could not take place at the same time as an election, in which the Labour party wanted it to, to save the cost so insted of costing the City £5,000 if it took part on the same day as an Election, it would of cost the City £72,000 to have the referendum.[/p][/quote]No offence intended southy, but thats not quite how it reads to me. Either way it did cost the us the £75k and Yes Labour wanted to hold the Biomass referendum at the same time as the PCC elections BUT NOT because they wanted to save the cost to us. Leader Williams was very much against the idea of a Police Crime Commissioner Election but could do nothing about it so what better than to conveniently use the Biomass Referendum as a political football creating a distraction knowing all along (in their words) that ''it wasnt legally binding''. Then they racked up 'costs' and have made us pay for it.. The Tories didnt stop the referendum as such. They just stopped our City Labour Council from holding it at same time as the PCC elections because i believe Electoral Law says its not to be done, so they were acting within the law. We both know if this particular Labour Group really wanted to go ahead with a project, they would not stop until they had succeeded. You only have to look at their choices in where they have made cuts to see they run their own members only agenda. We also know Labour had and has no intention of ever speaking the truth to us or including us residents in any 'council business' whatsoever...[/p][/quote]The 'truth' is there for anyone who wants to observe it. Why don't you go along to a Council meeting and sit in the public gallery? And read the minutes and agenda of all the committees, which are completely transparent and on the Council website. You'll quickly realise 2 things. (1) The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on and (2) the City has been brutally starved of cash from central government and there are tough, tough choices to be made as to how to spend what little money there is. And it doesn't go on Councillors. Their basic allowance is £10K. People seem to think there's a gravy train - there is not.[/p][/quote]Nice to know that for a change somebody is telling the truth by disclosing that "The two parties agree on much more than they disagree on" How can that be possible?........... .......... Because the Labour Party is not what it was and pretends to be, the traitors of working class and closet Conservatives have hijacked the old party and changed it into NuLabour, which in reality is unofficial right wing of the Tories. That is why next election on paper Southampton Itchen may have one Labour and one Tory candidate but in reality people will have to vote for a real Tory or a fake Tory pretending to be The Labour Party candidate. Or they may have yet another version of Tories as UKIP.[/p][/quote]......... and let us know which one you will be canvassing for please !!![/p][/quote]Dear LR, As it is I live in Southampton Test, and hope Alan Whitead will still be one of the candidates. If his team asks me to help I will certainly do what I can. Like John Denham he too works hard for ALL his constituents, unlike John Alan is politically more reliable even if you disagree with him he won't try to be agreeing with you but then do something else and doesn't get involved in conspiring or back stabbing fellow party members. What is even more important brain wise Alan is exceptionally great and has always been very serious environmentalist. Last one for me in very important, so I fail to work out that assuming Whitehead will be candidate why the Green Party has decided to contest Soton Test, and that too with Angela Mowle, whom I knew when she was Labour Councillor (unfortunately our colleague) Had poor opinion of her reliability then which has not changed, and what has she contributed towards campaign to save environment bar joining Green Party for political opportunism? Paramjit Bahia
  • 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