Labour ready with offer to end long-running dispute in Southampton

Labour ready with offer to end long-running dispute

Southampton Civic Centre

Simon Letts

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Politics and business reporter

Labour is today due to table an offer to the unions to settle a long-running dispute over pay cuts that saw rotting rubbish litter the streets of Southampton last summer.

The possible deal to restore pay cuts and remove the threat of a £12m legal claim will be discussed at a meeting with unions tomorrow.

Labour finance boss Councillor Simon Letts, pictured, confirmed last night that up to 90 council jobs could be lost over the next three or four years to fund the restoration of pay, worth £2.7m a year.

But he said the job cuts could be as few as 30 if other savings could be found and staff could be moved into other roles at the council.

He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances.

Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known [then] what I knownowI would have been clearer.”

However he claimed union chiefs and staff would have known some jobs losses were “inevitable” as an alternative to pay cuts.

He said Labour would do its “level best” to find affected staff new jobs under an extended redeployment scheme, due to be brought in at the end of the summer.

Unison branch secretary Mike Tucker said the party had never said job losses would be linked to pay restoration.

“We wouldn’t find it acceptable.

We believe the money could be found from other services,” he said, adding that any deal would have to be put to union members.

He criticised Labour for failing to consult the unions and staff before announcing a mini-budget to the media on Monday to save a further £2m a year with 20 job losses, including a plan to close Oaklands Swimming Pool in Lordshill, that would still leave the council facing an estimated £25m budget gap next year.

Tories brought in the controversial pay cuts of between 2 per cent and 5.5 per cent in July last year under threat of dismissal to “protect”

400 jobs from budget cuts. Opposition Tory group leader Cllr Royston Smith said Labour’s proposed new extended redeployment scheme was “flawed” as there was nowhere else for staff to go in council or wider public sector.

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:51pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

I think more strikes are looming..... better clear the rubbish out soon
I think more strikes are looming..... better clear the rubbish out soon Condor Man
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Wed 4 Jul 12

good-gosh says...

... and the band plays on ...
... and the band plays on ... good-gosh
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Wed 4 Jul 12

southy says...

"He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances."

why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.
"He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances." why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them. southy
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Wed 4 Jul 12

The Salv says...

Quick... to the money tree!
.
Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend.
.
Await increase in Council Tax's.
Quick... to the money tree! . Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend. . Await increase in Council Tax's. The Salv
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Wed 4 Jul 12

james47 says...

Well thats 90 jobs that labour has now slashed.

Only another 1410 to go...

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/9131580.
1_500_jobs_need_to_g
o_at_city_council__s
ays_Labour_group_lea
der/
Well thats 90 jobs that labour has now slashed. Only another 1410 to go... http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9131580. 1_500_jobs_need_to_g o_at_city_council__s ays_Labour_group_lea der/ james47
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Wed 4 Jul 12

tootle says...

This guy is the finance boss - sheesh. There is no money, there was no money, many people accepted the paycuts to keep their jobs because they knew there was no money. So why was Councillor Letts think there was? If Councillor Letts thought at all it isn't obvious from this article. Let's save somebody's job - sack the Councillor, share his job amongst the others and save some money!
This guy is the finance boss - sheesh. There is no money, there was no money, many people accepted the paycuts to keep their jobs because they knew there was no money. So why was Councillor Letts think there was? If Councillor Letts thought at all it isn't obvious from this article. Let's save somebody's job - sack the Councillor, share his job amongst the others and save some money! tootle
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Wed 4 Jul 12

MichaelCarr1 says...

Justwanted to point out this article has two paragraphs that are exactly the same.

"Labour finance boss Councillor Simon Letts, pictured, confirmed last night that up to 90 council jobs could be lost over the next three or four years to fund the restoration of pay, worth £2.7m a year."
Justwanted to point out this article has two paragraphs that are exactly the same. "Labour finance boss Councillor Simon Letts, pictured, confirmed last night that up to 90 council jobs could be lost over the next three or four years to fund the restoration of pay, worth £2.7m a year." MichaelCarr1
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Wed 4 Jul 12

james47 says...

southy wrote:
"He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances."

why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.
Good Lord!
I agree with Southy!
letts and Labour are liars!
No Sh*t!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances." why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.[/p][/quote]Good Lord! I agree with Southy! letts and Labour are liars! No Sh*t! james47
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Wed 4 Jul 12

aldermoorboy says...

Cllr Letts said "He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances.

Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known what I knownowI would have been clearer.”
In my view Cllr Letts is not fit to be a councillor, the books have always been available to be seen. Either Letts is lying or he is incompetent for not checking the finances.
Cllr Letts said "He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances. Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known [then] what I knownowI would have been clearer.” In my view Cllr Letts is not fit to be a councillor, the books have always been available to be seen. Either Letts is lying or he is incompetent for not checking the finances. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Shoong says...

james47 wrote:
southy wrote:
"He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances."

why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.
Good Lord!
I agree with Southy!
letts and Labour are liars!
No Sh*t!
Ditto!!!

I feel faint... ;-)
[quote][p][bold]james47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances." why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.[/p][/quote]Good Lord! I agree with Southy! letts and Labour are liars! No Sh*t![/p][/quote]Ditto!!! I feel faint... ;-) Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Shoong says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Cllr Letts said "He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances.

Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known what I knownowI would have been clearer.”
In my view Cllr Letts is not fit to be a councillor, the books have always been available to be seen. Either Letts is lying or he is incompetent for not checking the finances.
Probably both.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Cllr Letts said "He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances. Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known [then] what I knownowI would have been clearer.” In my view Cllr Letts is not fit to be a councillor, the books have always been available to be seen. Either Letts is lying or he is incompetent for not checking the finances.[/p][/quote]Probably both. Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Wed 4 Jul 12

BenjiWinsor says...

I know nothing of the amount of money the City Council receives and know nothing of the amount it pays out and to whom, what is left or what the deficit is and therefore cannot comment.
I know nothing of the amount of money the City Council receives and know nothing of the amount it pays out and to whom, what is left or what the deficit is and therefore cannot comment. BenjiWinsor
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Shoong says...

Genuine question, I suppose there's a very slim chance of it really but -

what happens if the offer is not acceptable..?
Genuine question, I suppose there's a very slim chance of it really but - what happens if the offer is not acceptable..? Shoong
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Wed 4 Jul 12

AndyVD says...

Shoong wrote:
Genuine question, I suppose there's a very slim chance of it really but -

what happens if the offer is not acceptable..?
We might get to see if the unions are actually impartial or bias towards politics.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: Genuine question, I suppose there's a very slim chance of it really but - what happens if the offer is not acceptable..?[/p][/quote]We might get to see if the unions are actually impartial or bias towards politics. AndyVD
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Wed 4 Jul 12

southy says...

james47 wrote:
southy wrote:
"He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances."

why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.
Good Lord!
I agree with Southy!
letts and Labour are liars!
No Sh*t!
Not Liars, just misleading the public, just like the Tory do.
How many jobs was it the Torys said that would be lost, what they told you was that they where going to save 400 jobs, what they missed out was that 2000 jobs was on the line to be chop, 400 saved brings it down to 1,600 job losses. It sounds good by saying that 400 jobs will be saved if they took the cuts.
[quote][p][bold]james47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances." why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.[/p][/quote]Good Lord! I agree with Southy! letts and Labour are liars! No Sh*t![/p][/quote]Not Liars, just misleading the public, just like the Tory do. How many jobs was it the Torys said that would be lost, what they told you was that they where going to save 400 jobs, what they missed out was that 2000 jobs was on the line to be chop, 400 saved brings it down to 1,600 job losses. It sounds good by saying that 400 jobs will be saved if they took the cuts. southy
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Wed 4 Jul 12

southy says...

MichaelCarr1 wrote:
Justwanted to point out this article has two paragraphs that are exactly the same.

"Labour finance boss Councillor Simon Letts, pictured, confirmed last night that up to 90 council jobs could be lost over the next three or four years to fund the restoration of pay, worth £2.7m a year."
Is that 90 jobs on top of the 1500 job cuts bring it closer to the Torys 1600 job losses or is it 90 jobs from the 1,500 job losses.
[quote][p][bold]MichaelCarr1[/bold] wrote: Justwanted to point out this article has two paragraphs that are exactly the same. "Labour finance boss Councillor Simon Letts, pictured, confirmed last night that up to 90 council jobs could be lost over the next three or four years to fund the restoration of pay, worth £2.7m a year."[/p][/quote]Is that 90 jobs on top of the 1500 job cuts bring it closer to the Torys 1600 job losses or is it 90 jobs from the 1,500 job losses. southy
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Fieldbean says...

With all the money Labour got off the Unions you think they would be able to at least do a deal whereby we have a working council. Perhaps the Unions should cut Labour's funding by five percent this year and see how many job losses there would be within the party.
With all the money Labour got off the Unions you think they would be able to at least do a deal whereby we have a working council. Perhaps the Unions should cut Labour's funding by five percent this year and see how many job losses there would be within the party. Fieldbean
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Wed 4 Jul 12

aldermoorboy says...

Southy, Southampton Tories have kept their promises, they don't lie that is the difference between them and Labour.
Vote Tory and you know what you get, living within their means.
Vote Labour get taken for a mug.
Southy, Southampton Tories have kept their promises, they don't lie that is the difference between them and Labour. Vote Tory and you know what you get, living within their means. Vote Labour get taken for a mug. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

5:39pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Ant Smoking MP says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Southy, Southampton Tories have kept their promises, they don't lie that is the difference between them and Labour.
Vote Tory and you know what you get, living within their means.
Vote Labour get taken for a mug.
Well apart from Cllr Moulton it seems. He has a problem with the truth!!
.
http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/yoursay/lette
rs/9797183.___Collec
tive_responsibility_
___over_station_clos
ures/
.
I agree though your view of the Tories, they are honest about their blatant anti public sector, anti union/working class. stance!! Cant knock them for that, they have always been that
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Southy, Southampton Tories have kept their promises, they don't lie that is the difference between them and Labour. Vote Tory and you know what you get, living within their means. Vote Labour get taken for a mug.[/p][/quote]Well apart from Cllr Moulton it seems. He has a problem with the truth!! . http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/9797183.___Collec tive_responsibility_ ___over_station_clos ures/ . I agree though your view of the Tories, they are honest about their blatant anti public sector, anti union/working class. stance!! Cant knock them for that, they have always been that Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Wed 4 Jul 12

southy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Southy, Southampton Tories have kept their promises, they don't lie that is the difference between them and Labour.
Vote Tory and you know what you get, living within their means.
Vote Labour get taken for a mug.
None of them Lie they just mislead the public.
Like the Torys coming out with "if they take the cut in wages 400 jobs would be saved" and making it sound like its 400 jobs lost from 1600. and leave out the rest. now that is not lieing nore is it tell the full truth, its just misleading the public by not telling them the rest like its will be 2000 job losses if they dont take the cut in wages, and 1600 jobs will still be lost if they do take the cut in wages.
vote for any right wing party your going to be taken for a mug.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Southy, Southampton Tories have kept their promises, they don't lie that is the difference between them and Labour. Vote Tory and you know what you get, living within their means. Vote Labour get taken for a mug.[/p][/quote]None of them Lie they just mislead the public. Like the Torys coming out with "if they take the cut in wages 400 jobs would be saved" and making it sound like its 400 jobs lost from 1600. and leave out the rest. now that is not lieing nore is it tell the full truth, its just misleading the public by not telling them the rest like its will be 2000 job losses if they dont take the cut in wages, and 1600 jobs will still be lost if they do take the cut in wages. vote for any right wing party your going to be taken for a mug. southy
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Ant Smoking MP says...

AndyVD wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Genuine question, I suppose there's a very slim chance of it really but -

what happens if the offer is not acceptable..?
We might get to see if the unions are actually impartial or bias towards politics.
Unions have always been political likewise employers are political. Unions generally support Labour, bosses and Venture Capitalists generally support the Tories. So what?
.
Remember it was Southamptons Tories in the first week of the bin strike last year that put out leaflets having a go at the Labour Party. Tey made it political and correctly the unions responded.
.
Here is an interesting fact to ponder. Lord Ashcroft bankrolls the Tories. I found a source that says Ashcroft has avoided Tax as a non dom and that figure is about £100 million!! He has bankrolled the Tories for £10 million in the last few years. Is that legitimately tax payers money ie yours and mine, that bankrolls the Tories??
.
I think we should be told!!
[quote][p][bold]AndyVD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: Genuine question, I suppose there's a very slim chance of it really but - what happens if the offer is not acceptable..?[/p][/quote]We might get to see if the unions are actually impartial or bias towards politics.[/p][/quote]Unions have always been political likewise employers are political. Unions generally support Labour, bosses and Venture Capitalists generally support the Tories. So what? . Remember it was Southamptons Tories in the first week of the bin strike last year that put out leaflets having a go at the Labour Party. Tey made it political and correctly the unions responded. . Here is an interesting fact to ponder. Lord Ashcroft bankrolls the Tories. I found a source that says Ashcroft has avoided Tax as a non dom and that figure is about £100 million!! He has bankrolled the Tories for £10 million in the last few years. Is that legitimately tax payers money ie yours and mine, that bankrolls the Tories?? . I think we should be told!! Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Wed 4 Jul 12

tootle says...

They are all politicians - so truth? Hmm!!! Tories are less hypocritical is all, they are all there for their own ends and reasons but Labour tend to persuade you it's for your good, Tories don't usually bother. If the offer is not acceptable there will probably be more strikes - since rubbish doesn't smell as much when it's cold maybe they could go on strike and guarantee us a few weeks of summer
They are all politicians - so truth? Hmm!!! Tories are less hypocritical is all, they are all there for their own ends and reasons but Labour tend to persuade you it's for your good, Tories don't usually bother. If the offer is not acceptable there will probably be more strikes - since rubbish doesn't smell as much when it's cold maybe they could go on strike and guarantee us a few weeks of summer tootle
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Wed 4 Jul 12

southy says...

tootle wrote:
They are all politicians - so truth? Hmm!!! Tories are less hypocritical is all, they are all there for their own ends and reasons but Labour tend to persuade you it's for your good, Tories don't usually bother. If the offer is not acceptable there will probably be more strikes - since rubbish doesn't smell as much when it's cold maybe they could go on strike and guarantee us a few weeks of summer
oh what don't tell me Cameron is Labour "we are all in it together"

just that most of us more in it, while the few are not in it at all.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: They are all politicians - so truth? Hmm!!! Tories are less hypocritical is all, they are all there for their own ends and reasons but Labour tend to persuade you it's for your good, Tories don't usually bother. If the offer is not acceptable there will probably be more strikes - since rubbish doesn't smell as much when it's cold maybe they could go on strike and guarantee us a few weeks of summer[/p][/quote]oh what don't tell me Cameron is Labour "we are all in it together" just that most of us more in it, while the few are not in it at all. southy
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Wed 4 Jul 12

aldermoorboy says...

Ant Smoking MP, THE LETTER YOU QUOTE IS JUST WRONG.
Check Jeremy Moulton blog, he states he voted to keep Shirley and Portswood police stations desks open. He also repeated this at public meetings. He and his colleagues are honest.
Not anti public service, my wife is a nurse, not anti union but anti militant union people. Not anti working class, most of our members are working class.
Tory and Liberal councillors took pay cuts, Labour refused and paid themselves more at the first chance.
Take the shame Labour, come and join us Ant if you care for Southampton.
Ant Smoking MP, THE LETTER YOU QUOTE IS JUST WRONG. Check Jeremy Moulton blog, he states he voted to keep Shirley and Portswood police stations desks open. He also repeated this at public meetings. He and his colleagues are honest. Not anti public service, my wife is a nurse, not anti union but anti militant union people. Not anti working class, most of our members are working class. Tory and Liberal councillors took pay cuts, Labour refused and paid themselves more at the first chance. Take the shame Labour, come and join us Ant if you care for Southampton. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Wed 4 Jul 12

aldermoorboy says...

There are caring people in all parties. I guess everyone who comes on here is a decent person.
All I believe is you should tell the truth as you see it. If you have to lie you really don't believe in your case.
Southy if I were your teacher I would give 10/10 for effort , 10/10 for passion, 10/10 for caring, but I think generally you are very very wrong, but you were correct Letts had the information to hand.
There are caring people in all parties. I guess everyone who comes on here is a decent person. All I believe is you should tell the truth as you see it. If you have to lie you really don't believe in your case. Southy if I were your teacher I would give 10/10 for effort , 10/10 for passion, 10/10 for caring, but I think generally you are very very wrong, but you were correct Letts had the information to hand. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

6:52pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Portswoodfoke says...

Labour in my view should be held on criminal charges of electoral fraud. There is a clear case of undue influence.

They have conspired with their union thugs to deliberately harm the health of the citizens of Southampton with striking basic sanitation services forcing an election in their favour then turning around and carrying on the same cuts they claimed to be against.

This goes far further than breaking election promises, they held the city to ransom, Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states they can not directly or indirectly cause or threaten to cause harm or damage to voters. They damaged our property with waste, risked our health with vermin, smell and rotting waste and made it clear that if we did not vote a certain way there would be more of the same.

This is criminal, the people of Southampton should be marching on the civic demanding these people are called to account. The principal of what they have done is very very serious and could easily be replicated on a bigger scale.

Stop trying to draw attention away to party funding, bankers etc that is another debate for another day on a national level. As local people we should dealing with these politicians, they have gone TOO FAR. We pay for those bin men through our council tax... why no CPS investigation?!
Labour in my view should be held on criminal charges of electoral fraud. There is a clear case of undue influence. They have conspired with their union thugs to deliberately harm the health of the citizens of Southampton with striking basic sanitation services forcing an election in their favour then turning around and carrying on the same cuts they claimed to be against. This goes far further than breaking election promises, they held the city to ransom, Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states they can not directly or indirectly cause or threaten to cause harm or damage to voters. They damaged our property with waste, risked our health with vermin, smell and rotting waste and made it clear that if we did not vote a certain way there would be more of the same. This is criminal, the people of Southampton should be marching on the civic demanding these people are called to account. The principal of what they have done is very very serious and could easily be replicated on a bigger scale. Stop trying to draw attention away to party funding, bankers etc that is another debate for another day on a national level. As local people we should dealing with these politicians, they have gone TOO FAR. We pay for those bin men through our council tax... why no CPS investigation?! Portswoodfoke
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Sir Ad E Noid says...

Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known what I knownowI would have been clearer.”

Your nose has grown longer.
Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known [then] what I knownowI would have been clearer.” Your nose has grown longer. Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Wed 4 Jul 12

thinklikealocal says...

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Labour in my view should be held on criminal charges of electoral fraud. There is a clear case of undue influence. They have conspired with their union thugs to deliberately harm the health of the citizens of Southampton with striking basic sanitation services forcing an election in their favour then turning around and carrying on the same cuts they claimed to be against. This goes far further than breaking election promises, they held the city to ransom, Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states they can not directly or indirectly cause or threaten to cause harm or damage to voters. They damaged our property with waste, risked our health with vermin, smell and rotting waste and made it clear that if we did not vote a certain way there would be more of the same. This is criminal, the people of Southampton should be marching on the civic demanding these people are called to account. The principal of what they have done is very very serious and could easily be replicated on a bigger scale. Stop trying to draw attention away to party funding, bankers etc that is another debate for another day on a national level. As local people we should dealing with these politicians, they have gone TOO FAR. We pay for those bin men through our council tax... why no CPS investigation?!
You are seriously funny with your ranting! A word of caution, inciting civil disobediance online was a risk free crime, until recently.....
[quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] wrote: Labour in my view should be held on criminal charges of electoral fraud. There is a clear case of undue influence. They have conspired with their union thugs to deliberately harm the health of the citizens of Southampton with striking basic sanitation services forcing an election in their favour then turning around and carrying on the same cuts they claimed to be against. This goes far further than breaking election promises, they held the city to ransom, Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states they can not directly or indirectly cause or threaten to cause harm or damage to voters. They damaged our property with waste, risked our health with vermin, smell and rotting waste and made it clear that if we did not vote a certain way there would be more of the same. This is criminal, the people of Southampton should be marching on the civic demanding these people are called to account. The principal of what they have done is very very serious and could easily be replicated on a bigger scale. Stop trying to draw attention away to party funding, bankers etc that is another debate for another day on a national level. As local people we should dealing with these politicians, they have gone TOO FAR. We pay for those bin men through our council tax... why no CPS investigation?![/p][/quote]You are seriously funny with your ranting! A word of caution, inciting civil disobediance online was a risk free crime, until recently..... thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Wed 4 Jul 12

southamptongeordie says...

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known what I knownowI would have been clearer.”

Your nose has grown longer.
Council budgets are probably too complicated for him to understand. Also he was probably too busy helping Councillor Williams caring for fellow sick councillors.

But at least they was successful and now Councillor Morrell is cured.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known [then] what I knownowI would have been clearer.” Your nose has grown longer.[/p][/quote]Council budgets are probably too complicated for him to understand. Also he was probably too busy helping Councillor Williams caring for fellow sick councillors. But at least they was successful and now Councillor Morrell is cured. southamptongeordie
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Wed 4 Jul 12

The Watcher says...

So at a national level it's OK to blame the previous administration for leaving the books in a mess and then add to this by saying the current situation is deteriorating and worse than expected, but it's not OK at a local level to trot out the same excuses.
.
Dontcha just love party politics.
.
This fine City's electorate decided back in May that they wanted a change and they will be the same judge and jury over the cominone ears, not the partisan politicians (from all sides) on here.
.
The Labour Party need to convince the electorate they were right to back them, whilst my Party need to stop wasting time on here and understand why they lost the trust of the voters,and how they can win it back.
.
Sniping in opposition is not a credible policy for ensuring a return to power (as Labour at a national level have found).
So at a national level it's OK to blame the previous administration for leaving the books in a mess and then add to this by saying the current situation is deteriorating and worse than expected, but it's not OK at a local level to trot out the same excuses. . Dontcha just love party politics. . This fine City's electorate decided back in May that they wanted a change and they will be the same judge and jury over the cominone ears, not the partisan politicians (from all sides) on here. . The Labour Party need to convince the electorate they were right to back them, whilst my Party need to stop wasting time on here and understand why they lost the trust of the voters,and how they can win it back. . Sniping in opposition is not a credible policy for ensuring a return to power (as Labour at a national level have found). The Watcher
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Wed 4 Jul 12

bazzeroz says...

I think the unions will accept this then the workers will go on strike for more pay!
I think the unions will accept this then the workers will go on strike for more pay! bazzeroz
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Wed 4 Jul 12

OceansofRed says...

This deal wont restore all the paycuts will it?
This deal wont restore all the paycuts will it? OceansofRed
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Wed 4 Jul 12

lordshill loyal says...

SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL
SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL lordshill loyal
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Wed 4 Jul 12

lordshill loyal says...

THE S... WILL HIT THE FAN TOMORROW.WATCH THIS SPACE.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL.OVER 70,000 USERS CANT BE WRONG
THE S... WILL HIT THE FAN TOMORROW.WATCH THIS SPACE.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL.OVER 70,000 USERS CANT BE WRONG lordshill loyal
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Wed 4 Jul 12

tootle says...

southy wrote:
tootle wrote:
They are all politicians - so truth? Hmm!!! Tories are less hypocritical is all, they are all there for their own ends and reasons but Labour tend to persuade you it's for your good, Tories don't usually bother. If the offer is not acceptable there will probably be more strikes - since rubbish doesn't smell as much when it's cold maybe they could go on strike and guarantee us a few weeks of summer
oh what don't tell me Cameron is Labour "we are all in it together"

just that most of us more in it, while the few are not in it at all.
Note I said "don't usually bother"!!!. Been difficult since Smith died to tell the difference between the parties, not that Harold Wilson's overcoat was that convincing.:-)
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: They are all politicians - so truth? Hmm!!! Tories are less hypocritical is all, they are all there for their own ends and reasons but Labour tend to persuade you it's for your good, Tories don't usually bother. If the offer is not acceptable there will probably be more strikes - since rubbish doesn't smell as much when it's cold maybe they could go on strike and guarantee us a few weeks of summer[/p][/quote]oh what don't tell me Cameron is Labour "we are all in it together" just that most of us more in it, while the few are not in it at all.[/p][/quote]Note I said "don't usually bother"!!!. Been difficult since Smith died to tell the difference between the parties, not that Harold Wilson's overcoat was that convincing.:-) tootle
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Ant Smoking MP says...

The Watcher wrote:
So at a national level it's OK to blame the previous administration for leaving the books in a mess and then add to this by saying the current situation is deteriorating and worse than expected, but it's not OK at a local level to trot out the same excuses.
.
Dontcha just love party politics.
.
This fine City's electorate decided back in May that they wanted a change and they will be the same judge and jury over the cominone ears, not the partisan politicians (from all sides) on here.
.
The Labour Party need to convince the electorate they were right to back them, whilst my Party need to stop wasting time on here and understand why they lost the trust of the voters,and how they can win it back.
.
Sniping in opposition is not a credible policy for ensuring a return to power (as Labour at a national level have found).
The first honest post from I believe a Conservative. Well done. Much respect!!
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: So at a national level it's OK to blame the previous administration for leaving the books in a mess and then add to this by saying the current situation is deteriorating and worse than expected, but it's not OK at a local level to trot out the same excuses. . Dontcha just love party politics. . This fine City's electorate decided back in May that they wanted a change and they will be the same judge and jury over the cominone ears, not the partisan politicians (from all sides) on here. . The Labour Party need to convince the electorate they were right to back them, whilst my Party need to stop wasting time on here and understand why they lost the trust of the voters,and how they can win it back. . Sniping in opposition is not a credible policy for ensuring a return to power (as Labour at a national level have found).[/p][/quote]The first honest post from I believe a Conservative. Well done. Much respect!! Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Ant Smoking MP says...

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Labour in my view should be held on criminal charges of electoral fraud. There is a clear case of undue influence.

They have conspired with their union thugs to deliberately harm the health of the citizens of Southampton with striking basic sanitation services forcing an election in their favour then turning around and carrying on the same cuts they claimed to be against.

This goes far further than breaking election promises, they held the city to ransom, Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states they can not directly or indirectly cause or threaten to cause harm or damage to voters. They damaged our property with waste, risked our health with vermin, smell and rotting waste and made it clear that if we did not vote a certain way there would be more of the same.

This is criminal, the people of Southampton should be marching on the civic demanding these people are called to account. The principal of what they have done is very very serious and could easily be replicated on a bigger scale.

Stop trying to draw attention away to party funding, bankers etc that is another debate for another day on a national level. As local people we should dealing with these politicians, they have gone TOO FAR. We pay for those bin men through our council tax... why no CPS investigation?!
What an absolute hilarious post. Well done. You confirm just what I think of most Tories. You talk 'rubbish'!! Excuse the pun!!
.
Why dont YOU ring up the CPS and let us know how you get on?
[quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] wrote: Labour in my view should be held on criminal charges of electoral fraud. There is a clear case of undue influence. They have conspired with their union thugs to deliberately harm the health of the citizens of Southampton with striking basic sanitation services forcing an election in their favour then turning around and carrying on the same cuts they claimed to be against. This goes far further than breaking election promises, they held the city to ransom, Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states they can not directly or indirectly cause or threaten to cause harm or damage to voters. They damaged our property with waste, risked our health with vermin, smell and rotting waste and made it clear that if we did not vote a certain way there would be more of the same. This is criminal, the people of Southampton should be marching on the civic demanding these people are called to account. The principal of what they have done is very very serious and could easily be replicated on a bigger scale. Stop trying to draw attention away to party funding, bankers etc that is another debate for another day on a national level. As local people we should dealing with these politicians, they have gone TOO FAR. We pay for those bin men through our council tax... why no CPS investigation?![/p][/quote]What an absolute hilarious post. Well done. You confirm just what I think of most Tories. You talk 'rubbish'!! Excuse the pun!! . Why dont YOU ring up the CPS and let us know how you get on? Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

9:34pm Wed 4 Jul 12

loosehead says...

Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known what I knownowI would have been clearer.”
so no Labour councillor checked the books before they made their promises?
However he claimed union chiefs and staff would have known some jobs losses were “inevitable” as an alternative to pay cuts. He said Labour would do its “level best” to find affected staff new roles under an extended redeployment scheme, due to be brought in at the end of the summer.
Then we get this comment.
Unison branch secretary Mike Tucker said the party had never said job losses would be linked to pay restoration.

“We wouldn’t find it acceptable.
So is Letts a liar as well?
He criticised Labour for failing to consult the unions and staff before announcing a mini-budget to the media on Monday to save a further £2m a year with 20 job losses,
wasn't this the same reasons given for court actions & strikes against the Tory council?
This shows Labour are Liars & have shafted the Unions who fought to get them their & the council workers who actually striked losing pay
Cllr Letts admitted: “If I had known [then] what I knownowI would have been clearer.” so no Labour councillor checked the books before they made their promises? However he claimed union chiefs and staff would have known some jobs losses were “inevitable” as an alternative to pay cuts. He said Labour would do its “level best” to find affected staff new roles under an extended redeployment scheme, due to be brought in at the end of the summer. Then we get this comment. Unison branch secretary Mike Tucker said the party had never said job losses would be linked to pay restoration. “We wouldn’t find it acceptable. So is Letts a liar as well? He criticised Labour for failing to consult the unions and staff before announcing a mini-budget to the media on Monday to save a further £2m a year with 20 job losses, wasn't this the same reasons given for court actions & strikes against the Tory council? This shows Labour are Liars & have shafted the Unions who fought to get them their & the council workers who actually striked losing pay loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:38pm Wed 4 Jul 12

loosehead says...

OceansofRed wrote:
This deal wont restore all the paycuts will it?
No it would take £7million to do that.
so watch this space for more services cut
[quote][p][bold]OceansofRed[/bold] wrote: This deal wont restore all the paycuts will it?[/p][/quote]No it would take £7million to do that. so watch this space for more services cut loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Wed 4 Jul 12

loosehead says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
So at a national level it's OK to blame the previous administration for leaving the books in a mess and then add to this by saying the current situation is deteriorating and worse than expected, but it's not OK at a local level to trot out the same excuses.
.
Dontcha just love party politics.
.
This fine City's electorate decided back in May that they wanted a change and they will be the same judge and jury over the cominone ears, not the partisan politicians (from all sides) on here.
.
The Labour Party need to convince the electorate they were right to back them, whilst my Party need to stop wasting time on here and understand why they lost the trust of the voters,and how they can win it back.
.
Sniping in opposition is not a credible policy for ensuring a return to power (as Labour at a national level have found).
The first honest post from I believe a Conservative. Well done. Much respect!!
So Ant are you going to come on here & apologise when Labour cut 1-10 refuse jobs & go to fortnightly collections?
Can you honestly agree with this councils actions ?
I've always believed the Unions & Labour Party would fight to secure jobs?
I seem to have been mislead as Williams Labour Council are willing to cut jobs & services to restore to mostly high earners the pay they had cut to save their fellow workers jobs?
How can you support this council?
will you come out on the side of the unions if they go on strike over this?
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: So at a national level it's OK to blame the previous administration for leaving the books in a mess and then add to this by saying the current situation is deteriorating and worse than expected, but it's not OK at a local level to trot out the same excuses. . Dontcha just love party politics. . This fine City's electorate decided back in May that they wanted a change and they will be the same judge and jury over the cominone ears, not the partisan politicians (from all sides) on here. . The Labour Party need to convince the electorate they were right to back them, whilst my Party need to stop wasting time on here and understand why they lost the trust of the voters,and how they can win it back. . Sniping in opposition is not a credible policy for ensuring a return to power (as Labour at a national level have found).[/p][/quote]The first honest post from I believe a Conservative. Well done. Much respect!![/p][/quote]So Ant are you going to come on here & apologise when Labour cut 1-10 refuse jobs & go to fortnightly collections? Can you honestly agree with this councils actions ? I've always believed the Unions & Labour Party would fight to secure jobs? I seem to have been mislead as Williams Labour Council are willing to cut jobs & services to restore to mostly high earners the pay they had cut to save their fellow workers jobs? How can you support this council? will you come out on the side of the unions if they go on strike over this? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:10pm Wed 4 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

I cant knock them until I see what the actions they are taking will be.

Guessing it will be restore pay and we'll rob the Public through Council Tax and Parking charges.

It HAS to be they will look after their friends and not us public!
I cant knock them until I see what the actions they are taking will be. Guessing it will be restore pay and we'll rob the Public through Council Tax and Parking charges. It HAS to be they will look after their friends and not us public! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

11:16pm Wed 4 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

Loosehead they won't strike!!!!!

The Union bosses will come up with some story and the sheep will follow like good lemmings.

They'll still pay their fee each month to be treated as fools LOL
Loosehead they won't strike!!!!! The Union bosses will come up with some story and the sheep will follow like good lemmings. They'll still pay their fee each month to be treated as fools LOL IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Wed 4 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it!
So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:27pm Wed 4 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
tootle wrote:
They are all politicians - so truth? Hmm!!! Tories are less hypocritical is all, they are all there for their own ends and reasons but Labour tend to persuade you it's for your good, Tories don't usually bother. If the offer is not acceptable there will probably be more strikes - since rubbish doesn't smell as much when it's cold maybe they could go on strike and guarantee us a few weeks of summer
oh what don't tell me Cameron is Labour "we are all in it together"

just that most of us more in it, while the few are not in it at all.
You'll never be in anything, you're in a world of your own!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: They are all politicians - so truth? Hmm!!! Tories are less hypocritical is all, they are all there for their own ends and reasons but Labour tend to persuade you it's for your good, Tories don't usually bother. If the offer is not acceptable there will probably be more strikes - since rubbish doesn't smell as much when it's cold maybe they could go on strike and guarantee us a few weeks of summer[/p][/quote]oh what don't tell me Cameron is Labour "we are all in it together" just that most of us more in it, while the few are not in it at all.[/p][/quote]You'll never be in anything, you're in a world of your own! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

6:24am Thu 5 Jul 12

loosehead says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it!
So explain this last comment!
Labour are saying the unions knew there would be job losses to restore pay the unions are saying they don't?
Who's lying on this one?
if you can't see now that Labours lying then there's no way of opening your eyes.
If this is correct we should see a continuation of industrial action unless Ironlady & people like myself were/are right & this industrial action was nothing more than political & those strikers have been betrayed by their uinions.
Fight for your rights against a Tory Council was the cry.
Now it's sorry we've got a Labour council now so here's your p45?
thanks for getting high earners back their money but Goodbye.
Sounds like good union practice to me but I thought it was suppose to be the other way round you know fight for their jobs
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it![/p][/quote]So explain this last comment! Labour are saying the unions knew there would be job losses to restore pay the unions are saying they don't? Who's lying on this one? if you can't see now that Labours lying then there's no way of opening your eyes. If this is correct we should see a continuation of industrial action unless Ironlady & people like myself were/are right & this industrial action was nothing more than political & those strikers have been betrayed by their uinions. Fight for your rights against a Tory Council was the cry. Now it's sorry we've got a Labour council now so here's your p45? thanks for getting high earners back their money but Goodbye. Sounds like good union practice to me but I thought it was suppose to be the other way round you know fight for their jobs loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:35am Thu 5 Jul 12

Portswoodfoke says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
Portswoodfoke wrote:
Labour in my view should be held on criminal charges of electoral fraud. There is a clear case of undue influence. They have conspired with their union thugs to deliberately harm the health of the citizens of Southampton with striking basic sanitation services forcing an election in their favour then turning around and carrying on the same cuts they claimed to be against. This goes far further than breaking election promises, they held the city to ransom, Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states they can not directly or indirectly cause or threaten to cause harm or damage to voters. They damaged our property with waste, risked our health with vermin, smell and rotting waste and made it clear that if we did not vote a certain way there would be more of the same. This is criminal, the people of Southampton should be marching on the civic demanding these people are called to account. The principal of what they have done is very very serious and could easily be replicated on a bigger scale. Stop trying to draw attention away to party funding, bankers etc that is another debate for another day on a national level. As local people we should dealing with these politicians, they have gone TOO FAR. We pay for those bin men through our council tax... why no CPS investigation?!
You are seriously funny with your ranting! A word of caution, inciting civil disobediance online was a risk free crime, until recently.....
When did I incite civil disobedience?!

Typical labour assume a march is criminal, not everything has to be a riot you know...

liberal voters are still capable of peaceful democratic protest marches without left-wingers engaging in pointless strikes or rioting.

You people are laughable, and shows the weakness of your argument that you have to use unions to rig elections.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] wrote: Labour in my view should be held on criminal charges of electoral fraud. There is a clear case of undue influence. They have conspired with their union thugs to deliberately harm the health of the citizens of Southampton with striking basic sanitation services forcing an election in their favour then turning around and carrying on the same cuts they claimed to be against. This goes far further than breaking election promises, they held the city to ransom, Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states they can not directly or indirectly cause or threaten to cause harm or damage to voters. They damaged our property with waste, risked our health with vermin, smell and rotting waste and made it clear that if we did not vote a certain way there would be more of the same. This is criminal, the people of Southampton should be marching on the civic demanding these people are called to account. The principal of what they have done is very very serious and could easily be replicated on a bigger scale. Stop trying to draw attention away to party funding, bankers etc that is another debate for another day on a national level. As local people we should dealing with these politicians, they have gone TOO FAR. We pay for those bin men through our council tax... why no CPS investigation?![/p][/quote]You are seriously funny with your ranting! A word of caution, inciting civil disobediance online was a risk free crime, until recently.....[/p][/quote]When did I incite civil disobedience?! Typical labour assume a march is criminal, not everything has to be a riot you know... liberal voters are still capable of peaceful democratic protest marches without left-wingers engaging in pointless strikes or rioting. You people are laughable, and shows the weakness of your argument that you have to use unions to rig elections. Portswoodfoke
  • Score: 0

8:43am Thu 5 Jul 12

tootle says...

Yes, last year's strike was very political. It was all about getting the Tories out and making the Unions look effective and powerful. It gained some concessions for the lower paid workers but the higher wage earner cuts still stood. Now the Unions want their payday for supporting the Labour cause - give the better off workers their wage back as well. I'd be betting on the Labour party not mentioning job cuts to pay for it and the Unions not asking whether there would be any and both sides closing their eyes to the blindingly obvious. Too early yet to see what action will be taken by either side - this is just the pre-fight posturing.

As to politicians lying - my Mother taught me about that many, many, many, years ago. At least that long ago they resigned when caught.
Yes, last year's strike was very political. It was all about getting the Tories out and making the Unions look effective and powerful. It gained some concessions for the lower paid workers but the higher wage earner cuts still stood. Now the Unions want their payday for supporting the Labour cause - give the better off workers their wage back as well. I'd be betting on the Labour party not mentioning job cuts to pay for it and the Unions not asking whether there would be any and both sides closing their eyes to the blindingly obvious. Too early yet to see what action will be taken by either side - this is just the pre-fight posturing. As to politicians lying - my Mother taught me about that many, many, many, years ago. At least that long ago they resigned when caught. tootle
  • Score: 0

8:50am Thu 5 Jul 12

loosehead says...

tootle wrote:
Yes, last year's strike was very political. It was all about getting the Tories out and making the Unions look effective and powerful. It gained some concessions for the lower paid workers but the higher wage earner cuts still stood. Now the Unions want their payday for supporting the Labour cause - give the better off workers their wage back as well. I'd be betting on the Labour party not mentioning job cuts to pay for it and the Unions not asking whether there would be any and both sides closing their eyes to the blindingly obvious. Too early yet to see what action will be taken by either side - this is just the pre-fight posturing.

As to politicians lying - my Mother taught me about that many, many, many, years ago. At least that long ago they resigned when caught.
Tootle I think you'll find they're restoring the pay of higher earners & redeploying & eventually losing the lower paid workers.
Doing it the Sunderland way means instead of making them redundant you use some of the redundancy payment to employ them for eight months & in that time if not enough workers leave & there are no job vacancies within the council you have to leave.
No mention that if you take on a lower paid job you can then be made redundant on lower pay & your pension can be lowered .
Maybe these council workers & Union people on here should think of that one?
It has happened in the company I worked for.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Yes, last year's strike was very political. It was all about getting the Tories out and making the Unions look effective and powerful. It gained some concessions for the lower paid workers but the higher wage earner cuts still stood. Now the Unions want their payday for supporting the Labour cause - give the better off workers their wage back as well. I'd be betting on the Labour party not mentioning job cuts to pay for it and the Unions not asking whether there would be any and both sides closing their eyes to the blindingly obvious. Too early yet to see what action will be taken by either side - this is just the pre-fight posturing. As to politicians lying - my Mother taught me about that many, many, many, years ago. At least that long ago they resigned when caught.[/p][/quote]Tootle I think you'll find they're restoring the pay of higher earners & redeploying & eventually losing the lower paid workers. Doing it the Sunderland way means instead of making them redundant you use some of the redundancy payment to employ them for eight months & in that time if not enough workers leave & there are no job vacancies within the council you have to leave. No mention that if you take on a lower paid job you can then be made redundant on lower pay & your pension can be lowered . Maybe these council workers & Union people on here should think of that one? It has happened in the company I worked for. loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:47am Thu 5 Jul 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
james47 wrote:
southy wrote:
"He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances."

why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.
Good Lord!
I agree with Southy!
letts and Labour are liars!
No Sh*t!
Not Liars, just misleading the public, just like the Tory do.
How many jobs was it the Torys said that would be lost, what they told you was that they where going to save 400 jobs, what they missed out was that 2000 jobs was on the line to be chop, 400 saved brings it down to 1,600 job losses. It sounds good by saying that 400 jobs will be saved if they took the cuts.
For me, and I hope for the rest of the electorate, there is no difference between a lie and a mis-direction.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]james47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances." why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.[/p][/quote]Good Lord! I agree with Southy! letts and Labour are liars! No Sh*t![/p][/quote]Not Liars, just misleading the public, just like the Tory do. How many jobs was it the Torys said that would be lost, what they told you was that they where going to save 400 jobs, what they missed out was that 2000 jobs was on the line to be chop, 400 saved brings it down to 1,600 job losses. It sounds good by saying that 400 jobs will be saved if they took the cuts.[/p][/quote]For me, and I hope for the rest of the electorate, there is no difference between a lie and a mis-direction. Shoong
  • Score: 0

10:52am Thu 5 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it!
So explain this last comment!
Labour are saying the unions knew there would be job losses to restore pay the unions are saying they don't?
Who's lying on this one?
if you can't see now that Labours lying then there's no way of opening your eyes.
If this is correct we should see a continuation of industrial action unless Ironlady & people like myself were/are right & this industrial action was nothing more than political & those strikers have been betrayed by their uinions.
Fight for your rights against a Tory Council was the cry.
Now it's sorry we've got a Labour council now so here's your p45?
thanks for getting high earners back their money but Goodbye.
Sounds like good union practice to me but I thought it was suppose to be the other way round you know fight for their jobs
As usual you have completely taken my message the wrong way, no further comment from me sorry.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it![/p][/quote]So explain this last comment! Labour are saying the unions knew there would be job losses to restore pay the unions are saying they don't? Who's lying on this one? if you can't see now that Labours lying then there's no way of opening your eyes. If this is correct we should see a continuation of industrial action unless Ironlady & people like myself were/are right & this industrial action was nothing more than political & those strikers have been betrayed by their uinions. Fight for your rights against a Tory Council was the cry. Now it's sorry we've got a Labour council now so here's your p45? thanks for getting high earners back their money but Goodbye. Sounds like good union practice to me but I thought it was suppose to be the other way round you know fight for their jobs[/p][/quote]As usual you have completely taken my message the wrong way, no further comment from me sorry. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:51am Thu 5 Jul 12

loosehead says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it!
So explain this last comment!
Labour are saying the unions knew there would be job losses to restore pay the unions are saying they don't?
Who's lying on this one?
if you can't see now that Labours lying then there's no way of opening your eyes.
If this is correct we should see a continuation of industrial action unless Ironlady & people like myself were/are right & this industrial action was nothing more than political & those strikers have been betrayed by their uinions.
Fight for your rights against a Tory Council was the cry.
Now it's sorry we've got a Labour council now so here's your p45?
thanks for getting high earners back their money but Goodbye.
Sounds like good union practice to me but I thought it was suppose to be the other way round you know fight for their jobs
As usual you have completely taken my message the wrong way, no further comment from me sorry.
Aren't you going to comment on a lying council?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it![/p][/quote]So explain this last comment! Labour are saying the unions knew there would be job losses to restore pay the unions are saying they don't? Who's lying on this one? if you can't see now that Labours lying then there's no way of opening your eyes. If this is correct we should see a continuation of industrial action unless Ironlady & people like myself were/are right & this industrial action was nothing more than political & those strikers have been betrayed by their uinions. Fight for your rights against a Tory Council was the cry. Now it's sorry we've got a Labour council now so here's your p45? thanks for getting high earners back their money but Goodbye. Sounds like good union practice to me but I thought it was suppose to be the other way round you know fight for their jobs[/p][/quote]As usual you have completely taken my message the wrong way, no further comment from me sorry.[/p][/quote]Aren't you going to comment on a lying council? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Thu 5 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it!
So explain this last comment!
Labour are saying the unions knew there would be job losses to restore pay the unions are saying they don't?
Who's lying on this one?
if you can't see now that Labours lying then there's no way of opening your eyes.
If this is correct we should see a continuation of industrial action unless Ironlady & people like myself were/are right & this industrial action was nothing more than political & those strikers have been betrayed by their uinions.
Fight for your rights against a Tory Council was the cry.
Now it's sorry we've got a Labour council now so here's your p45?
thanks for getting high earners back their money but Goodbye.
Sounds like good union practice to me but I thought it was suppose to be the other way round you know fight for their jobs
As usual you have completely taken my message the wrong way, no further comment from me sorry.
Aren't you going to comment on a lying council?
Nope, I leave that to you.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: So much sanctimonious rubbish on this thread and I haven't been anywhere near it![/p][/quote]So explain this last comment! Labour are saying the unions knew there would be job losses to restore pay the unions are saying they don't? Who's lying on this one? if you can't see now that Labours lying then there's no way of opening your eyes. If this is correct we should see a continuation of industrial action unless Ironlady & people like myself were/are right & this industrial action was nothing more than political & those strikers have been betrayed by their uinions. Fight for your rights against a Tory Council was the cry. Now it's sorry we've got a Labour council now so here's your p45? thanks for getting high earners back their money but Goodbye. Sounds like good union practice to me but I thought it was suppose to be the other way round you know fight for their jobs[/p][/quote]As usual you have completely taken my message the wrong way, no further comment from me sorry.[/p][/quote]Aren't you going to comment on a lying council?[/p][/quote]Nope, I leave that to you. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Thu 5 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
james47 wrote:
southy wrote:
"He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances."

why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.
Good Lord!
I agree with Southy!
letts and Labour are liars!
No Sh*t!
Not Liars, just misleading the public, just like the Tory do.
How many jobs was it the Torys said that would be lost, what they told you was that they where going to save 400 jobs, what they missed out was that 2000 jobs was on the line to be chop, 400 saved brings it down to 1,600 job losses. It sounds good by saying that 400 jobs will be saved if they took the cuts.
For me, and I hope for the rest of the electorate, there is no difference between a lie and a mis-direction.
Is that true?
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]james47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "He said Labour had not mentioned the prospect of the job losses in their election promises as they didn’t have the full details of the council’s perilous finances." why did you not know, being a Councillor should of made it easier for you to see the books and the state of the finances. the general public are allowed to see the how the finances are, its just made hard for them to do so, but it easy for a councillor to see them.[/p][/quote]Good Lord! I agree with Southy! letts and Labour are liars! No Sh*t![/p][/quote]Not Liars, just misleading the public, just like the Tory do. How many jobs was it the Torys said that would be lost, what they told you was that they where going to save 400 jobs, what they missed out was that 2000 jobs was on the line to be chop, 400 saved brings it down to 1,600 job losses. It sounds good by saying that 400 jobs will be saved if they took the cuts.[/p][/quote]For me, and I hope for the rest of the electorate, there is no difference between a lie and a mis-direction.[/p][/quote]Is that true? OSPREYSAINT
  • 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