Council approves moves to axe 200 jobs (From Daily Echo)

Well even though job cuts are not good news at least a common sense approach has been taken and those people on temp contracts will be terminated rather than permanent staff who have been with the council for many years.

The best solution to a horrid mess.

Any employer will tell you that the main reason (yes, there are other reasons-shortfalls/s
ickness etc) that they keep temporary people employed longer term is because they work harder! On average you get more worked hours out of a temporary employee than you do out of a permanent employee! (OK, I can hear the exceptions coming down the line!).
My guess is that many of the longer term Temporary employees at SCC are worth far more than many of their various permanent peer groups.
(Temporary is anyone from a minumum wage earner to an Accountant/I.T. profeesional/Consult
ant etc etc)
>
Because SCC is so unionised it is difficult to sack even the most incompetent employee so it makes sense to Weak Management to get rid of Temporary staff! It's a cop out!!

As previously posted.
.
Wow talk about out of proportion or what ........ mind you it is to be expected from the usual Tory posters.
.
They will do away with Agency workers. These are paid by the agency and in theory employed by the agency and cost a small packet ..... however the agency worker often gets paid on or about the national minimum pay.
.
Doing away with "Freelancers" who command a very high payment, often on day rates, and cost an absolute fortune to carry out the same jobs as the SCC employed.
.
Its a pity but the dear old Echo really spend more time getting quotes from a failed leader rather than establishing the "truth" or perhaps putting more meat on the bone.

George4th wrote:
Any employer will tell you that the main reason (yes, there are other reasons-shortfalls/s

ickness etc) that they keep temporary people employed longer term is because they work harder! On average you get more worked hours out of a temporary employee than you do out of a permanent employee! (OK, I can hear the exceptions coming down the line!).
My guess is that many of the longer term Temporary employees at SCC are worth far more than many of their various permanent peer groups.
(Temporary is anyone from a minumum wage earner to an Accountant/I.T. profeesional/Consult

ant etc etc)
>
Because SCC is so unionised it is difficult to sack even the most incompetent employee so it makes sense to Weak Management to get rid of Temporary staff! It's a cop out!!

This is true. It needn't even be a criticism of permanent workers, either. It is a simple matter of what each type of worker spends his time doing.

Permanent employees spend quite a lot of time on non-core activities like one-to-one meetings with line managers, going on internal courses not directly related to their current role, and other 'employee-ish' things. Temp staff do the job, and that's all. Temp staff aren't there to try and progress, or get a promotion, and are not involved in any activities surrounding those things. Not only does this mean more work-hours out of a temp, it also means less management time spent on those activities.

For goodness sake just put the council tax up to meet the shortfall,this is pathetic,we want services and we will pay for them.

Georgem wrote:

George4th wrote:
Any employer will tell you that the main reason (yes, there are other reasons-shortfalls/s


ickness etc) that they keep temporary people employed longer term is because they work harder! On average you get more worked hours out of a temporary employee than you do out of a permanent employee! (OK, I can hear the exceptions coming down the line!).
My guess is that many of the longer term Temporary employees at SCC are worth far more than many of their various permanent peer groups.
(Temporary is anyone from a minumum wage earner to an Accountant/I.T. profeesional/Consult


ant etc etc)
>
Because SCC is so unionised it is difficult to sack even the most incompetent employee so it makes sense to Weak Management to get rid of Temporary staff! It's a cop out!!

This is true. It needn't even be a criticism of permanent workers, either. It is a simple matter of what each type of worker spends his time doing.

Permanent employees spend quite a lot of time on non-core activities like one-to-one meetings with line managers, going on internal courses not directly related to their current role, and other 'employee-ish' things. Temp staff do the job, and that's all. Temp staff aren't there to try and progress, or get a promotion, and are not involved in any activities surrounding those things. Not only does this mean more work-hours out of a temp, it also means less management time spent on those activities.

Yes. You said it very well.
>
Some people have this fixation about minimum wage Temps! They should open their eyes and see that you have Temps of every persuasion - Doctors, Nurses, Interim managers, Directors, Draughtsmen, Lorry Drivers, Plumbers, Carpenters etc etc etc.

bigfella777 wrote:
For goodness sake just put the council tax up to meet the shortfall,this is pathetic,we want services and we will pay for them.

Agreed but it would be needed to do it the right way and not a blanket charge.
I this so time ago and pointed out how it could be done.

increase the number of bans there are'
A band 0.0% increase
B band 0.5% increase
C band 1.0% increase
D band 1.5% increase
and so on and add at lest 2 more bands on top that way if you want more ground space to take up personally then you have that tax increase that will reflect in it, because at the moment those at the top band who could own a house the size off the worlds biggest hotel and have more land around that house than what the Church owns would only pay 3x the amount than a home in Band A.

southy wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
For goodness sake just put the council tax up to meet the shortfall,this is pathetic,we want services and we will pay for them.

Agreed but it would be needed to do it the right way and not a blanket charge.
I this so time ago and pointed out how it could be done.

increase the number of bans there are'
A band 0.0% increase
B band 0.5% increase
C band 1.0% increase
D band 1.5% increase
and so on and add at lest 2 more bands on top that way if you want more ground space to take up personally then you have that tax increase that will reflect in it, because at the moment those at the top band who could own a house the size off the worlds biggest hotel and have more land around that house than what the Church owns would only pay 3x the amount than a home in Band A.

I said this some time ago and pointed out how it could be done.

Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

Change the record. Presumably, at Christmas time, you'll be here claiming "see? The TUSC told you it would be cold!"

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote: Remember the TUSC told you so. That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

Change the record. Presumably, at Christmas time, you'll be here claiming "see? The TUSC told you it would be cold!"

No it won't be cold if you are rich enough to go and enjoy Xmas on Australian sea side!

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote: Remember the TUSC told you so. That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

Change the record. Presumably, at Christmas time, you'll be here claiming "see? The TUSC told you it would be cold!"

No it won't be cold if you are rich enough to go and enjoy Xmas on Australian sea side!

It's a common misconception that you have or need to be rich to travel.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote: Remember the TUSC told you so. That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

Change the record. Presumably, at Christmas time, you'll be here claiming "see? The TUSC told you it would be cold!"

No it won't be cold if you are rich enough to go and enjoy Xmas on Australian sea side!

Or indeed anywhere in Australia!

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

'Remember the TUSC told you so'

This could be your new party slogan. There, you won't have to spend on money consultants to think it up for you.

All you need now is a basic understanding of how an economy works and some policies, a dose of reality and you should be well on your way to another drubbing in the polls.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

'Remember the TUSC told you so'

This could be your new party slogan. There, you won't have to spend on money consultants to think it up for you.

All you need now is a basic understanding of how an economy works and some policies, a dose of reality and you should be well on your way to another drubbing in the polls.

We seem to have a better concept how the economy works than most, make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy, the result of this is a slump, and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again till there are no jobs no one spending.
The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours, resulting in people spending in the economy, and the economy growing, creating more jobs, more spending in the economy.

Between southy andParamjit Bahia who seem to be the main culprits its enough to stop you reading the consistent drivel they keep spouting, probably the reason that bloke wanted to jump this morning. Honestly though guys give it a rest this is a daily paper not the union news.

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

'Remember the TUSC told you so'

This could be your new party slogan. There, you won't have to spend on money consultants to think it up for you.

All you need now is a basic understanding of how an economy works and some policies, a dose of reality and you should be well on your way to another drubbing in the polls.

We seem to have a better concept how the economy works than most, make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy, the result of this is a slump, and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again till there are no jobs no one spending.
The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours, resulting in people spending in the economy, and the economy growing, creating more jobs, more spending in the economy.

Do you really still not get it? There's a piece missing from your equation. Let me break it down for you:

> make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy

Yes. This is true.

> the result of this is a slump

This is also true.

> and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again

Again, may well be true.

So far, so good. We are in agreement. Here's the problematic bit:

> The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours

That's an idea. It's not actually a solution in itself. For it to be an actual solution, real, actual figures need to be applied to it. As it stands, your idea is to magic some money out of nowhere, to cover the cost of this exercise. For it to be taken at all seriously, you need to show how much money this will cost, and where it is going to come from. All you do is spout an ideal. We all understand the principle. This is the point. Having the principle is all well and good, but it doesn't mean you would be able to implement it. Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.

It's the TUSC equivalent of saying "let them eat cake".

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

'Remember the TUSC told you so'

This could be your new party slogan. There, you won't have to spend on money consultants to think it up for you.

All you need now is a basic understanding of how an economy works and some policies, a dose of reality and you should be well on your way to another drubbing in the polls.

We seem to have a better concept how the economy works than most, make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy, the result of this is a slump, and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again till there are no jobs no one spending.
The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours, resulting in people spending in the economy, and the economy growing, creating more jobs, more spending in the economy.

Do you really still not get it? There's a piece missing from your equation. Let me break it down for you:

> make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy

Yes. This is true.

> the result of this is a slump

This is also true.

> and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again

Again, may well be true.

So far, so good. We are in agreement. Here's the problematic bit:

> The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours

That's an idea. It's not actually a solution in itself. For it to be an actual solution, real, actual figures need to be applied to it. As it stands, your idea is to magic some money out of nowhere, to cover the cost of this exercise. For it to be taken at all seriously, you need to show how much money this will cost, and where it is going to come from. All you do is spout an ideal. We all understand the principle. This is the point. Having the principle is all well and good, but it doesn't mean you would be able to implement it. Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.

It's the TUSC equivalent of saying "let them eat cake".

Well weather if you like or not, you need to spend money to create jobs, and when you do this there more people able to spend more money in the economy that is true to.
When money is spent in creating jobs for more people to be able to spend in the economy, them more goods are needed creating more jobs, and because people are spending then industarys will create jobs in the area, knowing people are spending and its worth there while setting up business here or at lest an out let for there goods.
One all ways follows the other. Cuts and Savings was tried in the 1920's and look what the end result was, it took a major war wwii to get out of that mess, and carry on the way we are it will take another major war wwiii to get out of it again, but the only difference will be you and every one else will not like the end result because most will not see it.
What you are doing is telling the people to eat cake

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

'Remember the TUSC told you so'

This could be your new party slogan. There, you won't have to spend on money consultants to think it up for you.

All you need now is a basic understanding of how an economy works and some policies, a dose of reality and you should be well on your way to another drubbing in the polls.

We seem to have a better concept how the economy works than most, make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy, the result of this is a slump, and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again till there are no jobs no one spending.
The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours, resulting in people spending in the economy, and the economy growing, creating more jobs, more spending in the economy.

Do you really still not get it? There's a piece missing from your equation. Let me break it down for you:

> make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy

Yes. This is true.

> the result of this is a slump

This is also true.

> and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again

Again, may well be true.

So far, so good. We are in agreement. Here's the problematic bit:

> The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours

That's an idea. It's not actually a solution in itself. For it to be an actual solution, real, actual figures need to be applied to it. As it stands, your idea is to magic some money out of nowhere, to cover the cost of this exercise. For it to be taken at all seriously, you need to show how much money this will cost, and where it is going to come from. All you do is spout an ideal. We all understand the principle. This is the point. Having the principle is all well and good, but it doesn't mean you would be able to implement it. Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.

It's the TUSC equivalent of saying "let them eat cake".

Well weather if you like or not, you need to spend money to create jobs, and when you do this there more people able to spend more money in the economy that is true to.
When money is spent in creating jobs for more people to be able to spend in the economy, them more goods are needed creating more jobs, and because people are spending then industarys will create jobs in the area, knowing people are spending and its worth there while setting up business here or at lest an out let for there goods.
One all ways follows the other. Cuts and Savings was tried in the 1920's and look what the end result was, it took a major war wwii to get out of that mess, and carry on the way we are it will take another major war wwiii to get out of it again, but the only difference will be you and every one else will not like the end result because most will not see it.
What you are doing is telling the people to eat cake

Like I said

'Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.'

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

'Remember the TUSC told you so'

This could be your new party slogan. There, you won't have to spend on money consultants to think it up for you.

All you need now is a basic understanding of how an economy works and some policies, a dose of reality and you should be well on your way to another drubbing in the polls.

We seem to have a better concept how the economy works than most, make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy, the result of this is a slump, and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again till there are no jobs no one spending.
The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours, resulting in people spending in the economy, and the economy growing, creating more jobs, more spending in the economy.

Do you really still not get it? There's a piece missing from your equation. Let me break it down for you:

> make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy

Yes. This is true.

> the result of this is a slump

This is also true.

> and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again

Again, may well be true.

So far, so good. We are in agreement. Here's the problematic bit:

> The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours

That's an idea. It's not actually a solution in itself. For it to be an actual solution, real, actual figures need to be applied to it. As it stands, your idea is to magic some money out of nowhere, to cover the cost of this exercise. For it to be taken at all seriously, you need to show how much money this will cost, and where it is going to come from. All you do is spout an ideal. We all understand the principle. This is the point. Having the principle is all well and good, but it doesn't mean you would be able to implement it. Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.

It's the TUSC equivalent of saying "let them eat cake".

Well weather if you like or not, you need to spend money to create jobs, and when you do this there more people able to spend more money in the economy that is true to.
When money is spent in creating jobs for more people to be able to spend in the economy, them more goods are needed creating more jobs, and because people are spending then industarys will create jobs in the area, knowing people are spending and its worth there while setting up business here or at lest an out let for there goods.
One all ways follows the other. Cuts and Savings was tried in the 1920's and look what the end result was, it took a major war wwii to get out of that mess, and carry on the way we are it will take another major war wwiii to get out of it again, but the only difference will be you and every one else will not like the end result because most will not see it.
What you are doing is telling the people to eat cake

Like I said

'Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.'

You got the answers and what happens, cuts in services and jobs are not new, its been tried before and failed big time, the mess we are in today is because the cuts and job losses of the 80's, and now your paying for it in bigger amounts. you can not keep cutting it will create the conditions for civil unrest and cold trigger a revolutions.
what you going to do when less than half the population as jobs have money coming, are you going to turn round and tell them no more welfare off any kind or are you going to tell those with a jobs you going to need to pay more taxes, you only have 2 ways to turn to and both will lead on to civil unrest.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

'Remember the TUSC told you so'

This could be your new party slogan. There, you won't have to spend on money consultants to think it up for you.

All you need now is a basic understanding of how an economy works and some policies, a dose of reality and you should be well on your way to another drubbing in the polls.

We seem to have a better concept how the economy works than most, make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy, the result of this is a slump, and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again till there are no jobs no one spending.
The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours, resulting in people spending in the economy, and the economy growing, creating more jobs, more spending in the economy.

Do you really still not get it? There's a piece missing from your equation. Let me break it down for you:

> make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy

Yes. This is true.

> the result of this is a slump

This is also true.

> and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again

Again, may well be true.

So far, so good. We are in agreement. Here's the problematic bit:

> The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours

That's an idea. It's not actually a solution in itself. For it to be an actual solution, real, actual figures need to be applied to it. As it stands, your idea is to magic some money out of nowhere, to cover the cost of this exercise. For it to be taken at all seriously, you need to show how much money this will cost, and where it is going to come from. All you do is spout an ideal. We all understand the principle. This is the point. Having the principle is all well and good, but it doesn't mean you would be able to implement it. Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.

It's the TUSC equivalent of saying "let them eat cake".

Well weather if you like or not, you need to spend money to create jobs, and when you do this there more people able to spend more money in the economy that is true to.
When money is spent in creating jobs for more people to be able to spend in the economy, them more goods are needed creating more jobs, and because people are spending then industarys will create jobs in the area, knowing people are spending and its worth there while setting up business here or at lest an out let for there goods.
One all ways follows the other. Cuts and Savings was tried in the 1920's and look what the end result was, it took a major war wwii to get out of that mess, and carry on the way we are it will take another major war wwiii to get out of it again, but the only difference will be you and every one else will not like the end result because most will not see it.
What you are doing is telling the people to eat cake

Like I said

'Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.'

You got the answers and what happens, cuts in services and jobs are not new, its been tried before and failed big time, the mess we are in today is because the cuts and job losses of the 80's, and now your paying for it in bigger amounts. you can not keep cutting it will create the conditions for civil unrest and cold trigger a revolutions.
what you going to do when less than half the population as jobs have money coming, are you going to turn round and tell them no more welfare off any kind or are you going to tell those with a jobs you going to need to pay more taxes, you only have 2 ways to turn to and both will lead on to civil unrest.

Here's another slogan you can use:

'19th Century Solutions for 21st Century problems'.

I won't charge for that one either.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

'Remember the TUSC told you so'

This could be your new party slogan. There, you won't have to spend on money consultants to think it up for you.

All you need now is a basic understanding of how an economy works and some policies, a dose of reality and you should be well on your way to another drubbing in the polls.

We seem to have a better concept how the economy works than most, make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy, the result of this is a slump, and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again till there are no jobs no one spending.
The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours, resulting in people spending in the economy, and the economy growing, creating more jobs, more spending in the economy.

Do you really still not get it? There's a piece missing from your equation. Let me break it down for you:

> make people unemployed or lower there wages and they become unable to spend money in the economy

Yes. This is true.

> the result of this is a slump

This is also true.

> and more job losses and the slump gets deeper, so you keep repeating the same cycle over and over again

Again, may well be true.

So far, so good. We are in agreement. Here's the problematic bit:

> The answer to the problem is to spend money in creating reasonable paid jobs at reasonable hours

That's an idea. It's not actually a solution in itself. For it to be an actual solution, real, actual figures need to be applied to it. As it stands, your idea is to magic some money out of nowhere, to cover the cost of this exercise. For it to be taken at all seriously, you need to show how much money this will cost, and where it is going to come from. All you do is spout an ideal. We all understand the principle. This is the point. Having the principle is all well and good, but it doesn't mean you would be able to implement it. Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.

It's the TUSC equivalent of saying "let them eat cake".

Well weather if you like or not, you need to spend money to create jobs, and when you do this there more people able to spend more money in the economy that is true to.
When money is spent in creating jobs for more people to be able to spend in the economy, them more goods are needed creating more jobs, and because people are spending then industarys will create jobs in the area, knowing people are spending and its worth there while setting up business here or at lest an out let for there goods.
One all ways follows the other. Cuts and Savings was tried in the 1920's and look what the end result was, it took a major war wwii to get out of that mess, and carry on the way we are it will take another major war wwiii to get out of it again, but the only difference will be you and every one else will not like the end result because most will not see it.
What you are doing is telling the people to eat cake

Like I said

'Whenever you're challenged on this, you simply repeat your argument.'

You got the answers and what happens, cuts in services and jobs are not new, its been tried before and failed big time, the mess we are in today is because the cuts and job losses of the 80's, and now your paying for it in bigger amounts. you can not keep cutting it will create the conditions for civil unrest and cold trigger a revolutions.
what you going to do when less than half the population as jobs have money coming, are you going to turn round and tell them no more welfare off any kind or are you going to tell those with a jobs you going to need to pay more taxes, you only have 2 ways to turn to and both will lead on to civil unrest.

.....scanning for anything other than yet more empty repetition........sc
anning in progress......scanni
ng complete......

result: nothing new was found

Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

Its not the time to pester them on the doors, and I meet 100's of people each week on the streets, its on the streets where the work is now, How do you think Labour became so popular, It was because of the Socialist party who was the founding member of the Labour party putting all there work on the streets and not just at election times they do it all year round, they use to be the the ears of the people for the labour party, and now they been kick out of the party that they founded, labour as become just another party for the well off.

Although I want the TORIES to win in Redbridge, if they do not I hope you do. I do not agree with the points you make, but you get 100% for effort and for that reason I wish you well.

Georgem every thing that your kind of thinking have tired in the 1700's 1800's and then again in 1910's and again in the 1920's have failed big time it only deepens the problem and makes things worse, it was big wars that save that kind of system, and so far there as been no big wars and the problem just gets deeper and deeper, we are at a lower level with the economy than in the big slump of the 80's.
What happens with that kind of thinking is the economy slumps say 10 steps and when it improves it only reaches 7 steps forward before another 10 steps fall.
Its a never endding cycle that just keeps getting deeper and deeper, and the reason why is because they will not spend money to save jobs and to create jobs.
There is £70 billion sitting in uk financing banking just sitting there not being invested, there is over £120 trillion sitting in off shore tax free banking not being in vested just sitting there colletting tax free interest.
these are the people you are supporting in keeping the same system in lace for the last 32 years.

Georgem wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote: Remember the TUSC told you so. That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

Change the record. Presumably, at Christmas time, you'll be here claiming "see? The TUSC told you it would be cold!"

No it won't be cold if you are rich enough to go and enjoy Xmas on Australian sea side!

Or indeed anywhere in Australia!

Even now full of industrial pollution city in Punjab where I studied could be OK, and I won't have to hang upside down either!

Shoong wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote: Remember the TUSC told you so. That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

Change the record. Presumably, at Christmas time, you'll be here claiming "see? The TUSC told you it would be cold!"

No it won't be cold if you are rich enough to go and enjoy Xmas on Australian sea side!

It's a common misconception that you have or need to be rich to travel.

Of course if you own magic carpet you can travel free while smoking your hookah in open air...

And what about riding on the engine of jumbo jet?

GeorgeM, I think it is bit unfair to demand from Southy that he should provide details like Chancellor of Exchequer, considering with all the resources at their disposal not only the current office holder but even some previous holders of that high office got their projections very wrong and have landed us in current mess.

In fairness to Southy, I think he is telling the truth that he and organisation TUSC did warn about the fast ones NuLabour was pulling before May elections. So nothing wrong with him exercising well earned bragging rights. Had he been caught doing what NuLabourites are trying to get away with, how many of us would have left him alone?

There is nothing fake or pure red revolutionary stuff in Southy promoting Keynesian approach. Of course others may have different beliefs, but they should not be picking and choosing bits to argue for the sake of appearing clever.

If people really believe in 'Free Market' then them justifying pouring billions into banks can't be right.

Sticking to Council, although Cllr. Letts is old colleague of mine, I do not share his approach and support those who point at him and his Party for having misled people during elections.

How local authorities are financed is the real problem, it has been going on under governments of both right and fake left NuLabour.

Others may not agree but some of us believe that part of billions central government wastes upon various things (I have often mentioned some of those in the past) if given to local councils unnecessary cuts can be avoided.

On that point I and Southy's Party do not agree, because they want to try borrowing and I believe that Councils should unite and confront powers in London.

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

I have given similar advice to him few times, but Southy wants to stick by his unique style.

For an individual he has massive following in basically left leaning ward. Local work in helping people and listening to them could increase his chances

southy wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

Its not the time to pester them on the doors, and I meet 100's of people each week on the streets, its on the streets where the work is now, How do you think Labour became so popular, It was because of the Socialist party who was the founding member of the Labour party putting all there work on the streets and not just at election times they do it all year round, they use to be the the ears of the people for the labour party, and now they been kick out of the party that they founded, labour as become just another party for the well off.

Southy please stop scoring own goals.

I have tried to argue for you but you have invited more flak.

I am sure you are aware when The Labour Party was formed.

Obviously you also know that Socialist Party you belong to was only recently renamed from Militant Labour, which itself was launched when Militant Tendency was proscribed under Kinnock.

Please correct your post before you get criticised yet again.

So now we will be left in a situation where unskilled permanent workers will have to be trained up to take on what were part time jobs in full time roles.

Doesn't sound like good value for money to me.

Surely it would have been better to accept the pay cuts in order to protect front line services and jobs.

Guess it's a case of i'm alright Jack and I don't care if anyone else loses their jobs or front line services are lost.

Where is the old spirit of making sacrifices when times are bad.

Who was it that got our public finances in such a mess? Labour that's who and they are still not learning from their mistakes. Who pays the price for this? Well the poor workers and us as the Customers of public services.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

Its not the time to pester them on the doors, and I meet 100's of people each week on the streets, its on the streets where the work is now, How do you think Labour became so popular, It was because of the Socialist party who was the founding member of the Labour party putting all there work on the streets and not just at election times they do it all year round, they use to be the the ears of the people for the labour party, and now they been kick out of the party that they founded, labour as become just another party for the well off.

Southy please stop scoring own goals.

I have tried to argue for you but you have invited more flak.

I am sure you are aware when The Labour Party was formed.

Obviously you also know that Socialist Party you belong to was only recently renamed from Militant Labour, which itself was launched when Militant Tendency was proscribed under Kinnock.

Please correct your post before you get criticised yet again.

Before they was known as the Militant they was called the Revolutionary Socialist League (part of that League was the Socialist Party.) then in 1964 they became the Militant base around the paper its a revert back to its old name on leaving the Labour party and shedding that name Militant Labour, they was the ones on the streets doing all the talking to the people, listening to what they had to say, its some thing they have all ways done, then took this back to the Labour party and told them what the people wanted and saying, that was in the days when Labour use to get things right, because of that connection to the streets. that connection is no longer there, because all other groups with in the "Revolutionary Socialist League" later known as the Militant have mostly gone and no longer part of the Labour party, the Communist groups and most of the Socialist workers Party do not back the Labour party, only those down here in the South.
The Revolutionary Socialist League was formed before the name Labour Party became the common name.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

I have given similar advice to him few times, but Southy wants to stick by his unique style.

For an individual he has massive following in basically left leaning ward. Local work in helping people and listening to them could increase his chances

And you do that on the Streets not by knocking on doors, you do stalls like we do all ready in busy areas, and you back the locals in what they want, like we are doing.
Tell me where are the Torys, the Lib dem now that the council had its meeting (last Wed) on oaklands pool and had there vote on the subject, tell me who still out on the streets fighting for the locals get oaklands pool reopen we are the socialist the fight is not over its still on going and we are still on the streets talking and listen to people and have a new petition going and still meeting new people

aldermoorboy wrote:
Although I want the TORIES to win in Redbridge, if they do not I hope you do. I do not agree with the points you make, but you get 100% for effort and for that reason I wish you well.

aldermoorboy
Tell me when as any right wing figures added up even come near to balancing the book, it never as its all ways rely on the less wealthy to pay for them.

One off the figures right wing never includes in there sums is, the more they make unemployed the less that comes in and more having to be giving out.

Like one person made unemployed that person now as to claim all sorts of benefits to survive, that person can not spend in the local economy like he use to, so the economy suffers, that person pay less in back in council tax, so the returns back from government is also less as they work on a % of what was given.
Now multiply that effect by 10's, 100's, 1,000's, 10,000's 100,000's and 1,000,000's. It would not take much for the out goings to be greating than the incomings, and this is what as happened and been happening since 1980.
Right wing policy do not work any more.

bigfella777 wrote:
For goodness sake just put the council tax up to meet the shortfall,this is pathetic,we want services and we will pay for them.

If the council did that, central government would cut it grant by the same amount, so net gain SFA.

By doing this, Cameron&Co claim that they are keeping council taxes down, but conveniently forget that with the rising costs under their administration, it means that councils have to cut the services that they provide.

southy wrote:
Remember the TUSC told you so.
That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

If the TUSC were to running the council (heaven forbid) the situation would be the same.

If councils raise their council tax, central government will reduce their grant by a similar sum.

Shoong wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote: Remember the TUSC told you so. That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

Change the record. Presumably, at Christmas time, you'll be here claiming "see? The TUSC told you it would be cold!"

No it won't be cold if you are rich enough to go and enjoy Xmas on Australian sea side!

It's a common misconception that you have or need to be rich to travel.

That's right. Join the Army and visit Afghanistan.

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

I have given similar advice to him few times, but Southy wants to stick by his unique style.

For an individual he has massive following in basically left leaning ward. Local work in helping people and listening to them could increase his chances

And you do that on the Streets not by knocking on doors, you do stalls like we do all ready in busy areas, and you back the locals in what they want, like we are doing.
Tell me where are the Torys, the Lib dem now that the council had its meeting (last Wed) on oaklands pool and had there vote on the subject, tell me who still out on the streets fighting for the locals get oaklands pool reopen we are the socialist the fight is not over its still on going and we are still on the streets talking and listen to people and have a new petition going and still meeting new people

Southy, sometimes I honestly do not know know what to make of you. While your total commitment to your party is admirable, on flip side I get impression that you have some sort of extra ordinary self destruct mechanism as part of your personality.

Probably for different reasons a Tory supporter and I a socialist have tried to give you good advice about how you could build upon your core vote in Redbridge, but in your typical style you have gone into defensive mode.

You I and other supporters of TUSC can say whatever we like about Tories and NuLabour, but FACT is they have won seats in place where real decisions are made. All we can do is sit and watch from public gallery.

Thanks for trying to play know it all Charlie with me about history of Labour Party. But you have overlooked simple historical facts.

The Labour Party was launched in 1900, please correct me if I am wrong I am convinced those days there was no such thing called "Revolutionary Socialist League" made up of Trotsky's followers in Britain.

So kindly try to enlighten me, poor ill informed person, the mystery of your brag "Labour became so popular, it was because Socialist Party WHO WAS FOUNDING MEMBER of the Labour Party putting all their hard work on the streets...."

Can you really blame me for getting confused and failing to work out how something that did not even exist in 1900 and most certainly was not part of groups that launched The Labour Party became its founder and sole player in mysteriously making it the greatest success?

Southy please stop undoing your lots of good work due to eagerness to prove that you are the only source of complete knowledge. Because none us can ever be that. This approach in open forums could also hurt the reputation of Socialist Party.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

I have given similar advice to him few times, but Southy wants to stick by his unique style.

For an individual he has massive following in basically left leaning ward. Local work in helping people and listening to them could increase his chances

And you do that on the Streets not by knocking on doors, you do stalls like we do all ready in busy areas, and you back the locals in what they want, like we are doing.
Tell me where are the Torys, the Lib dem now that the council had its meeting (last Wed) on oaklands pool and had there vote on the subject, tell me who still out on the streets fighting for the locals get oaklands pool reopen we are the socialist the fight is not over its still on going and we are still on the streets talking and listen to people and have a new petition going and still meeting new people

Southy, sometimes I honestly do not know know what to make of you. While your total commitment to your party is admirable, on flip side I get impression that you have some sort of extra ordinary self destruct mechanism as part of your personality.

Probably for different reasons a Tory supporter and I a socialist have tried to give you good advice about how you could build upon your core vote in Redbridge, but in your typical style you have gone into defensive mode.

You I and other supporters of TUSC can say whatever we like about Tories and NuLabour, but FACT is they have won seats in place where real decisions are made. All we can do is sit and watch from public gallery.

Thanks for trying to play know it all Charlie with me about history of Labour Party. But you have overlooked simple historical facts.

The Labour Party was launched in 1900, please correct me if I am wrong I am convinced those days there was no such thing called "Revolutionary Socialist League" made up of Trotsky's followers in Britain.

So kindly try to enlighten me, poor ill informed person, the mystery of your brag "Labour became so popular, it was because Socialist Party WHO WAS FOUNDING MEMBER of the Labour Party putting all their hard work on the streets...."

Can you really blame me for getting confused and failing to work out how something that did not even exist in 1900 and most certainly was not part of groups that launched The Labour Party became its founder and sole player in mysteriously making it the greatest success?

Southy please stop undoing your lots of good work due to eagerness to prove that you are the only source of complete knowledge. Because none us can ever be that. This approach in open forums could also hurt the reputation of Socialist Party.

Paramjit Bahia people do not what you knocking there doors, start doing that and it starts giving a name like the Jova witness got.
Its the streets, where the people are who will talk and listen they do not what it on there doors out off election time.

The orgins of the Labour Party go's back into the mid to late 1800's, when a group of Socialist teamed up with a railway union, became the Socialist Party, Keir Hardie got involved then in 1893 in Bradford set up the ILP.
Under the leadership of James Keir Hardie, the ILP advocated the unification in one organisation of the industrial and political wings of the labour movement, in 1899 the TUC at the 1899 Congress, this resolution was moved by J.H. Holmes, a delegate of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants:


and then in 1900 other trade unions and other socialist groups merge and that became the Labour Party in 1906.
Scottish Labour party go's back 1888.
There was a well known name in the very early days of the english Labour Party, who was a Coal miner union man and a member of the Socialist party, who use to walk the streets with an Apple box to stand on and give speaches on street corners a year ahead of election, he did not knock on any doors and yet he got elected into Government in 1910.

The Torys and Labour win seats because people have only voted for them in the past, just like when Labour ILP started people only vote for Liberals or the Torys.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Shoong wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote: Remember the TUSC told you so. That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

Change the record. Presumably, at Christmas time, you'll be here claiming "see? The TUSC told you it would be cold!"

No it won't be cold if you are rich enough to go and enjoy Xmas on Australian sea side!

It's a common misconception that you have or need to be rich to travel.

Of course if you own magic carpet you can travel free while smoking your hookah in open air...

And what about riding on the engine of jumbo jet?

Or take an ordinary plane. You can get a return flight to Australia for less than £700. While it isn't exactly peanuts, it's not the preserve of the rich, either.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
GeorgeM, I think it is bit unfair to demand from Southy that he should provide details like Chancellor of Exchequer, considering with all the resources at their disposal not only the current office holder but even some previous holders of that high office got their projections very wrong and have landed us in current mess.

In fairness to Southy, I think he is telling the truth that he and organisation TUSC did warn about the fast ones NuLabour was pulling before May elections. So nothing wrong with him exercising well earned bragging rights. Had he been caught doing what NuLabourites are trying to get away with, how many of us would have left him alone?

There is nothing fake or pure red revolutionary stuff in Southy promoting Keynesian approach. Of course others may have different beliefs, but they should not be picking and choosing bits to argue for the sake of appearing clever.

If people really believe in 'Free Market' then them justifying pouring billions into banks can't be right.

Sticking to Council, although Cllr. Letts is old colleague of mine, I do not share his approach and support those who point at him and his Party for having misled people during elections.

How local authorities are financed is the real problem, it has been going on under governments of both right and fake left NuLabour.

Others may not agree but some of us believe that part of billions central government wastes upon various things (I have often mentioned some of those in the past) if given to local councils unnecessary cuts can be avoided.

On that point I and Southy's Party do not agree, because they want to try borrowing and I believe that Councils should unite and confront powers in London.

I totally agree that it's a little unfair to demand that level of detail, considering the resources he has available. I understand that it's not possible for him, or me, or most people, to do so, not being privvy to all that information.

That is exactly my point. He's not in a position to make claims about what the TUSC would actually do in this situation, only what they would like to do. They've got no way of actually knowing whether it would be implementable or not. That's why I say their policies are just empty promises. It's not a criticism of southy, or the TUSC, it's just a fact that applies to almost everybody.

Just to clarify, southy, I don't actually expect you to produce any numbers to back up the TUSC promise. I know you can't. That's only to be expected. The data just isn't available. That's why your economic promises are untrustworthy. Noble, but ultimately you can't be even remotely sure you could deliver on them.

Please don't reply with the explanation of why you think it would work. I get it.

Linesman wrote:

Shoong wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote: Remember the TUSC told you so. That there would be masive Cuts in services and jobs weather it be a Tory, Lib/Dem or Labour Council, there is only a million £'s that seperates the top 3 partys for each year over the next four years, and the only difference between them is how it would be applied, in about 1,450 lost jobs and cut in services.

Change the record. Presumably, at Christmas time, you'll be here claiming "see? The TUSC told you it would be cold!"

No it won't be cold if you are rich enough to go and enjoy Xmas on Australian sea side!

It's a common misconception that you have or need to be rich to travel.

That's right. Join the Army and visit Afghanistan.

Change the record.

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

I have given similar advice to him few times, but Southy wants to stick by his unique style.

For an individual he has massive following in basically left leaning ward. Local work in helping people and listening to them could increase his chances

And you do that on the Streets not by knocking on doors, you do stalls like we do all ready in busy areas, and you back the locals in what they want, like we are doing.
Tell me where are the Torys, the Lib dem now that the council had its meeting (last Wed) on oaklands pool and had there vote on the subject, tell me who still out on the streets fighting for the locals get oaklands pool reopen we are the socialist the fight is not over its still on going and we are still on the streets talking and listen to people and have a new petition going and still meeting new people

Southy, sometimes I honestly do not know know what to make of you. While your total commitment to your party is admirable, on flip side I get impression that you have some sort of extra ordinary self destruct mechanism as part of your personality.

Probably for different reasons a Tory supporter and I a socialist have tried to give you good advice about how you could build upon your core vote in Redbridge, but in your typical style you have gone into defensive mode.

You I and other supporters of TUSC can say whatever we like about Tories and NuLabour, but FACT is they have won seats in place where real decisions are made. All we can do is sit and watch from public gallery.

Thanks for trying to play know it all Charlie with me about history of Labour Party. But you have overlooked simple historical facts.

The Labour Party was launched in 1900, please correct me if I am wrong I am convinced those days there was no such thing called "Revolutionary Socialist League" made up of Trotsky's followers in Britain.

So kindly try to enlighten me, poor ill informed person, the mystery of your brag "Labour became so popular, it was because Socialist Party WHO WAS FOUNDING MEMBER of the Labour Party putting all their hard work on the streets...."

Can you really blame me for getting confused and failing to work out how something that did not even exist in 1900 and most certainly was not part of groups that launched The Labour Party became its founder and sole player in mysteriously making it the greatest success?

Southy please stop undoing your lots of good work due to eagerness to prove that you are the only source of complete knowledge. Because none us can ever be that. This approach in open forums could also hurt the reputation of Socialist Party.

Paramjit Bahia people do not what you knocking there doors, start doing that and it starts giving a name like the Jova witness got.
Its the streets, where the people are who will talk and listen they do not what it on there doors out off election time.

The orgins of the Labour Party go's back into the mid to late 1800's, when a group of Socialist teamed up with a railway union, became the Socialist Party, Keir Hardie got involved then in 1893 in Bradford set up the ILP.
Under the leadership of James Keir Hardie, the ILP advocated the unification in one organisation of the industrial and political wings of the labour movement, in 1899 the TUC at the 1899 Congress, this resolution was moved by J.H. Holmes, a delegate of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants:


and then in 1900 other trade unions and other socialist groups merge and that became the Labour Party in 1906.
Scottish Labour party go's back 1888.
There was a well known name in the very early days of the english Labour Party, who was a Coal miner union man and a member of the Socialist party, who use to walk the streets with an Apple box to stand on and give speaches on street corners a year ahead of election, he did not knock on any doors and yet he got elected into Government in 1910.

The Torys and Labour win seats because people have only voted for them in the past, just like when Labour ILP started people only vote for Liberals or the Torys.

Southy I am sorry to say that I am starting to reach similar conclusion about you as many of your other fans on this site:

When caught out you avoid sticking to the subject by posting something completely different.

Please read what I wrote again. I have questioned your false claim that Socialist Party was amongst founders of The Labour Party and responsible for its rise...

I know you have tied yourself in your self made knots by mixing historical facts, in eagerness to prove that you are much clever than rest of us mugs.

As a socialist I try using the same standard for mates as I would for somebody else. So I can't make any concessions here.

Hence I am asking you again to explain how your Socialist Party became founder of The Labour Party, when at that time it did not even exist?

Revolutionary Socialist League you tried to hide under did not exist either.

I do not have to research to prove your whopper because it does not even get mentioned by you in your own latest answer avoiding comment.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop playing silly games if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise you could not only be harming reputation of your Socialist Party but also bringing socialism itself into disrepute.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

I have given similar advice to him few times, but Southy wants to stick by his unique style.

For an individual he has massive following in basically left leaning ward. Local work in helping people and listening to them could increase his chances

And you do that on the Streets not by knocking on doors, you do stalls like we do all ready in busy areas, and you back the locals in what they want, like we are doing.
Tell me where are the Torys, the Lib dem now that the council had its meeting (last Wed) on oaklands pool and had there vote on the subject, tell me who still out on the streets fighting for the locals get oaklands pool reopen we are the socialist the fight is not over its still on going and we are still on the streets talking and listen to people and have a new petition going and still meeting new people

Southy, sometimes I honestly do not know know what to make of you. While your total commitment to your party is admirable, on flip side I get impression that you have some sort of extra ordinary self destruct mechanism as part of your personality.

Probably for different reasons a Tory supporter and I a socialist have tried to give you good advice about how you could build upon your core vote in Redbridge, but in your typical style you have gone into defensive mode.

You I and other supporters of TUSC can say whatever we like about Tories and NuLabour, but FACT is they have won seats in place where real decisions are made. All we can do is sit and watch from public gallery.

Thanks for trying to play know it all Charlie with me about history of Labour Party. But you have overlooked simple historical facts.

The Labour Party was launched in 1900, please correct me if I am wrong I am convinced those days there was no such thing called "Revolutionary Socialist League" made up of Trotsky's followers in Britain.

So kindly try to enlighten me, poor ill informed person, the mystery of your brag "Labour became so popular, it was because Socialist Party WHO WAS FOUNDING MEMBER of the Labour Party putting all their hard work on the streets...."

Can you really blame me for getting confused and failing to work out how something that did not even exist in 1900 and most certainly was not part of groups that launched The Labour Party became its founder and sole player in mysteriously making it the greatest success?

Southy please stop undoing your lots of good work due to eagerness to prove that you are the only source of complete knowledge. Because none us can ever be that. This approach in open forums could also hurt the reputation of Socialist Party.

Paramjit Bahia people do not what you knocking there doors, start doing that and it starts giving a name like the Jova witness got.
Its the streets, where the people are who will talk and listen they do not what it on there doors out off election time.

The orgins of the Labour Party go's back into the mid to late 1800's, when a group of Socialist teamed up with a railway union, became the Socialist Party, Keir Hardie got involved then in 1893 in Bradford set up the ILP.
Under the leadership of James Keir Hardie, the ILP advocated the unification in one organisation of the industrial and political wings of the labour movement, in 1899 the TUC at the 1899 Congress, this resolution was moved by J.H. Holmes, a delegate of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants:


and then in 1900 other trade unions and other socialist groups merge and that became the Labour Party in 1906.
Scottish Labour party go's back 1888.
There was a well known name in the very early days of the english Labour Party, who was a Coal miner union man and a member of the Socialist party, who use to walk the streets with an Apple box to stand on and give speaches on street corners a year ahead of election, he did not knock on any doors and yet he got elected into Government in 1910.

The Torys and Labour win seats because people have only voted for them in the past, just like when Labour ILP started people only vote for Liberals or the Torys.

Southy I am sorry to say that I am starting to reach similar conclusion about you as many of your other fans on this site:

When caught out you avoid sticking to the subject by posting something completely different.

Please read what I wrote again. I have questioned your false claim that Socialist Party was amongst founders of The Labour Party and responsible for its rise...

I know you have tied yourself in your self made knots by mixing historical facts, in eagerness to prove that you are much clever than rest of us mugs.

As a socialist I try using the same standard for mates as I would for somebody else. So I can't make any concessions here.

Hence I am asking you again to explain how your Socialist Party became founder of The Labour Party, when at that time it did not even exist?

Revolutionary Socialist League you tried to hide under did not exist either.

I do not have to research to prove your whopper because it does not even get mentioned by you in your own latest answer avoiding comment.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop playing silly games if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise you could not only be harming reputation of your Socialist Party but also bringing socialism itself into disrepute.

Please don't try and change Southy, this comment section wouldn't be the same if he were serious and honest.

I look forward to reading his posts and laughing.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
Free advice for Southy.
If you want to win Redbridge in 2014, halve your time on the internet and spend it knocking on doors in Redbridge, you never know you may surprise us all and win.
More calls more orders as they say in selling.

I have given similar advice to him few times, but Southy wants to stick by his unique style.

For an individual he has massive following in basically left leaning ward. Local work in helping people and listening to them could increase his chances

especially in millbrook as the 'listening ears of millbrook' doesnt listen!!