Unions to discuss action over Southampton City Council cuts

Simon Letts

Simon Letts

First published in News

A MASS meeting of union members will be held next month to agree possible action against sweeping cuts at Southampton council as the authority tackles its worst ever financial crisis.

At least 100 jobs have already been earmarked for the axe, even before council leaders have finalised the raft of cuts and hikes in charges they need to make to plug a £26m budget gap.

As revealed in yesterday’s Daily Echo, the city’s finance boss Councillor Simon Letts has warned there will be no good news or new initiatives and said the city was trapped in a “perfect storm” following Government funding cuts.

He yesterday postponed by a month the release of a draft budget saying more time was needed to consider the options, confirm potential savings and Government grants.

Union leaders, who have been shown a confidential dossier of possible cuts, said they had agreed it was the best way forward until the draft budget was completed.

Unison branch secretary Mike Tucker said: “Once we know the final details of the jobs losses we will consult with members as to what action to take.

“Council staff didn’t cause this problem. The council is facing the greatest reduction in Government grant and the loss of jobs is a direct consequence.”

The meeting will come just weeks after union members agreed a pay restoration deal to end long-running industrial action over wage cuts brought in last July by the previous Conservative administration.

A special meeting of the council’s powerful overview and scrutiny committee has now been called after the budget delay.

Committee chairman Councillor Jeremy Moulton said it was clear Labour’s budget planning was in “total chaos and disarray”.

“The delay in the budget announcement is unprecedented and this emergency scrutiny meeting is essential so we can shine a light on the process and ensure that the leader of the council and his administration urgently get some sort of grip on things.”

Labour council leaders will meet on Sunday morning to thrash out further details of their budget to put to a meeting of the whole group later this month. They have privately admitted there is “much more work to do” and have accused Tories of a lack of financial planning over the past two years.

Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

They will be joined by other trade unions, c o m m u n i t y groups and members of the public, who will all be taking to the streets of London to protest against Government spending cuts.

Tim Cutter, Hampshire UNISON branch secretary, said local communities were under threat by the “destruction of public services”.

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:34am Tue 9 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

Ah, the old dinosaurs are rumbling again.
Ah, the old dinosaurs are rumbling again. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

10:38am Tue 9 Oct 12

Dave of Dibden says...

Here we go again
Here we go again Dave of Dibden
  • Score: 0

10:40am Tue 9 Oct 12

George4th says...

It is quite clear that this council is way out of its depth! Before coming to power they knew that there was a £46 million budget shortfall over two years and yet they FAILED TO PLAN! This is the first time ever that a Budget has not been ready on time!!
Now you know the probable reason why Councillor Keith Morrell resigned days after he saw the books! It proved that Labour had not thought through what they were going to do in office!
Total SHAMBLES!
It is quite clear that this council is way out of its depth! Before coming to power they knew that there was a £46 million budget shortfall over two years and yet they FAILED TO PLAN! This is the first time ever that a Budget has not been ready on time!! Now you know the probable reason why Councillor Keith Morrell resigned days after he saw the books! It proved that Labour had not thought through what they were going to do in office! Total SHAMBLES! George4th
  • Score: 0

10:44am Tue 9 Oct 12

MGRA says...

vote labour.... then they will make it up as they go along.... idiots who voted them in are about to regret it. Still thats democracy for ya !!
vote labour.... then they will make it up as they go along.... idiots who voted them in are about to regret it. Still thats democracy for ya !! MGRA
  • Score: 0

10:44am Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger. southy
  • Score: 0

10:47am Tue 9 Oct 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
So ?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]So ? Shoong
  • Score: 0

10:51am Tue 9 Oct 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

cut the gold plated pensions ,unsustainable ,the crisis is now.
cut the gold plated pensions ,unsustainable ,the crisis is now. arthur dalyrimple
  • Score: 0

11:15am Tue 9 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts? hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

11:20am Tue 9 Oct 12

__KTF__ says...

Must be time to collect the members annual subs again.

Quick, lets do something to make it look like its still worthwhile paying them.
Must be time to collect the members annual subs again. Quick, lets do something to make it look like its still worthwhile paying them. __KTF__
  • Score: 0

11:31am Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time. southy
  • Score: 0

11:36am Tue 9 Oct 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Despite it being not sustainable. That's a theory. Sounds great on paper or from a fringe party that will never get elected, but it's not the reality, in which you are in complete denial of.

Grasp of basic economics - get one.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Despite it being not sustainable. That's a theory. Sounds great on paper or from a fringe party that will never get elected, but it's not the reality, in which you are in complete denial of. Grasp of basic economics - get one. Shoong
  • Score: 0

11:47am Tue 9 Oct 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Trade union representatives like Tucker seem to have snookered themselves because of their own hypocritical behaviour.

Rather than looking after the interests of union members and treating the council as ruthless employer, regardless of whichever party may be in power, these self serving unfit for the purpose people decided to play party politics.

Both main unions not only asked people to vote for Conservatised NuLabour but they also financed NuLabour's misleading election campaign.

So now for those like me who always support trade unions it is difficult to argue with people who could be saying 'serves them right', 'they asked for it and have got it' etc

Jumped up and full of self importance union leaders like Tucker should stop treating people as if they were their own reflections in mirror.... Hypocrite mugs.

There is nothing new in national government making the life of local councils difficult through financial controls. I may not have been keen on Tories, but as a socialist do believe in telling the truth, so have to say that Smith led Tories had similar problems with London as Dear Leader Williams and his mad axe man Simon Letts are having now.

Which means mitigation put forward for his Tory Disreali inspired darlings of NuLabour by fake Trotskyist Tucker is his typical cr@p.

Local authorities should unite to demand that billions that are wasted by government on bent bankers EU and grants to super rich businesses should be redirected to local councils, so they could provide proper services.
Trade union representatives like Tucker seem to have snookered themselves because of their own hypocritical behaviour. Rather than looking after the interests of union members and treating the council as ruthless employer, regardless of whichever party may be in power, these self serving unfit for the purpose people decided to play party politics. Both main unions not only asked people to vote for Conservatised NuLabour but they also financed NuLabour's misleading election campaign. So now for those like me who always support trade unions it is difficult to argue with people who could be saying 'serves them right', 'they asked for it and have got it' etc Jumped up and full of self importance union leaders like Tucker should stop treating people as if they were their own reflections in mirror.... Hypocrite mugs. There is nothing new in national government making the life of local councils difficult through financial controls. I may not have been keen on Tories, but as a socialist do believe in telling the truth, so have to say that Smith led Tories had similar problems with London as Dear Leader Williams and his mad axe man Simon Letts are having now. Which means mitigation put forward for his Tory Disreali inspired darlings of NuLabour by fake Trotskyist Tucker is his typical cr@p. Local authorities should unite to demand that billions that are wasted by government on bent bankers EU and grants to super rich businesses should be redirected to local councils, so they could provide proper services. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

11:51am Tue 9 Oct 12

SaintsBTGOG says...

Its because of the UNIONS that council staff and cuts are being made. Those prats who voted labour simply because their bins where not emptied also have their hands dirty.


Labour and finances = clueless
Its because of the UNIONS that council staff and cuts are being made. Those prats who voted labour simply because their bins where not emptied also have their hands dirty. Labour and finances = clueless SaintsBTGOG
  • Score: 0

11:55am Tue 9 Oct 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof? Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

11:55am Tue 9 Oct 12

ohec says...

It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford.
It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford. ohec
  • Score: 0

11:56am Tue 9 Oct 12

loosehead says...

So exactly why did the Unions hold the vote on pay before the announcement was made?
The Unions knew it was bad so why not wait ?
So now they'll strike to stop job cuts?
If they had at least talked to the Tory council instead of whipping up hysteria there would have been minor job cuts compared to what Labour propose yet they wouldn't didn't talk until no matter what the offer the workforce would vote against it.
We told you better with a small pay cut & a job than no job well we were right.
Maybe stop the spending of an extra £50million on Townhill Park & stick to the original Tory plans could help as surely this money could be spent on wages couldn't it?
Wasn't that the argument put forward about the Sea City Museum?
So exactly why did the Unions hold the vote on pay before the announcement was made? The Unions knew it was bad so why not wait ? So now they'll strike to stop job cuts? If they had at least talked to the Tory council instead of whipping up hysteria there would have been minor job cuts compared to what Labour propose yet they wouldn't didn't talk until no matter what the offer the workforce would vote against it. We told you better with a small pay cut & a job than no job well we were right. Maybe stop the spending of an extra £50million on Townhill Park & stick to the original Tory plans could help as surely this money could be spent on wages couldn't it? Wasn't that the argument put forward about the Sea City Museum? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:59am Tue 9 Oct 12

loosehead says...

ohec wrote:
It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford.
Did you say that when they striked under a Tory council?
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford.[/p][/quote]Did you say that when they striked under a Tory council? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Despite it being not sustainable. That's a theory. Sounds great on paper or from a fringe party that will never get elected, but it's not the reality, in which you are in complete denial of.

Grasp of basic economics - get one.
being sustainable a theory, you can't even see the simple answers to solutions.
Increase in population is an increase in the amount of funds coming in and an increase in work load, But if your to willing to put people in the dole, then its not going to be sustainanle, you need people working and for people to be working you need the jobs out there for them earn a reasonable wage to be able to spend in the economy and pay taxes.
and that is the very basic off any economy or is that to far advance for you to under stand.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Despite it being not sustainable. That's a theory. Sounds great on paper or from a fringe party that will never get elected, but it's not the reality, in which you are in complete denial of. Grasp of basic economics - get one.[/p][/quote]being sustainable a theory, you can't even see the simple answers to solutions. Increase in population is an increase in the amount of funds coming in and an increase in work load, But if your to willing to put people in the dole, then its not going to be sustainanle, you need people working and for people to be working you need the jobs out there for them earn a reasonable wage to be able to spend in the economy and pay taxes. and that is the very basic off any economy or is that to far advance for you to under stand. southy
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?
No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?[/p][/quote]No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in. southy
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Despite it being not sustainable. That's a theory. Sounds great on paper or from a fringe party that will never get elected, but it's not the reality, in which you are in complete denial of.

Grasp of basic economics - get one.
being sustainable a theory, you can't even see the simple answers to solutions.
Increase in population is an increase in the amount of funds coming in and an increase in work load, But if your to willing to put people in the dole, then its not going to be sustainanle, you need people working and for people to be working you need the jobs out there for them earn a reasonable wage to be able to spend in the economy and pay taxes.
and that is the very basic off any economy or is that to far advance for you to under stand.
'you can't even see the simple answers to solutions.'

You can't even explain your own parties own plans for 'no cuts' in any real detail whatsoever, so that's water off a ducks back I'm afraid.

You talk a lot but ultimately say nothing. It's just propaganda and spin, mostly talking to yourself by the looks of it.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Despite it being not sustainable. That's a theory. Sounds great on paper or from a fringe party that will never get elected, but it's not the reality, in which you are in complete denial of. Grasp of basic economics - get one.[/p][/quote]being sustainable a theory, you can't even see the simple answers to solutions. Increase in population is an increase in the amount of funds coming in and an increase in work load, But if your to willing to put people in the dole, then its not going to be sustainanle, you need people working and for people to be working you need the jobs out there for them earn a reasonable wage to be able to spend in the economy and pay taxes. and that is the very basic off any economy or is that to far advance for you to under stand.[/p][/quote]'you can't even see the simple answers to solutions.' You can't even explain your own parties own plans for 'no cuts' in any real detail whatsoever, so that's water off a ducks back I'm afraid. You talk a lot but ultimately say nothing. It's just propaganda and spin, mostly talking to yourself by the looks of it. Shoong
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

ohec wrote:
It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford.
Theres no such thing as Labour Left they where kick out or push out of the Labour party years ago, what you feeling now is the effects of 32 years of right wing economics and political policy.

As normal right wing pushing the blame onto others because they cant take the blame for there failing system that will not work in a modern world.
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford.[/p][/quote]Theres no such thing as Labour Left they where kick out or push out of the Labour party years ago, what you feeling now is the effects of 32 years of right wing economics and political policy. As normal right wing pushing the blame onto others because they cant take the blame for there failing system that will not work in a modern world. southy
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

SaintsBTGOG wrote:
Its because of the UNIONS that council staff and cuts are being made. Those prats who voted labour simply because their bins where not emptied also have their hands dirty.


Labour and finances = clueless
How do you work that out when the Tory Council was going to make cuts before the unions was even told there was going to be job losses and any action was not even thought about
[quote][p][bold]SaintsBTGOG[/bold] wrote: Its because of the UNIONS that council staff and cuts are being made. Those prats who voted labour simply because their bins where not emptied also have their hands dirty. Labour and finances = clueless[/p][/quote]How do you work that out when the Tory Council was going to make cuts before the unions was even told there was going to be job losses and any action was not even thought about southy
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Tue 9 Oct 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
SaintsBTGOG wrote:
Its because of the UNIONS that council staff and cuts are being made. Those prats who voted labour simply because their bins where not emptied also have their hands dirty.


Labour and finances = clueless
How do you work that out when the Tory Council was going to make cuts before the unions was even told there was going to be job losses and any action was not even thought about
As a non elected candidate you seem to think you know it all don't you?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SaintsBTGOG[/bold] wrote: Its because of the UNIONS that council staff and cuts are being made. Those prats who voted labour simply because their bins where not emptied also have their hands dirty. Labour and finances = clueless[/p][/quote]How do you work that out when the Tory Council was going to make cuts before the unions was even told there was going to be job losses and any action was not even thought about[/p][/quote]As a non elected candidate you seem to think you know it all don't you? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Taskforce 141 says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
They shouldn't be immune, but just remember you said this when you start complaining vital council services are scrapped or modified. One thing is guaranteed - with job losses comes loss of service, there is no two ways about it, all teams are stretched thin as it is and come april when 300 people are axed (200 temp employees) it will be chaos, not to mention the following year when no doubt there will be further cuts.

you can only put so many fingers and toes into the holes before the **** breaks!
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]They shouldn't be immune, but just remember you said this when you start complaining vital council services are scrapped or modified. One thing is guaranteed - with job losses comes loss of service, there is no two ways about it, all teams are stretched thin as it is and come april when 300 people are axed (200 temp employees) it will be chaos, not to mention the following year when no doubt there will be further cuts. you can only put so many fingers and toes into the holes before the **** breaks! Taskforce 141
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?
No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.
Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion.

One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?[/p][/quote]No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.[/p][/quote]Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion. One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Tue 9 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Taskforce 141 wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
They shouldn't be immune, but just remember you said this when you start complaining vital council services are scrapped or modified. One thing is guaranteed - with job losses comes loss of service, there is no two ways about it, all teams are stretched thin as it is and come april when 300 people are axed (200 temp employees) it will be chaos, not to mention the following year when no doubt there will be further cuts.

you can only put so many fingers and toes into the holes before the **** breaks!
So a small pay cut & job security was to much to take then? so now job losses ? you get what you asked for & the left asked for this so have fun
[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]They shouldn't be immune, but just remember you said this when you start complaining vital council services are scrapped or modified. One thing is guaranteed - with job losses comes loss of service, there is no two ways about it, all teams are stretched thin as it is and come april when 300 people are axed (200 temp employees) it will be chaos, not to mention the following year when no doubt there will be further cuts. you can only put so many fingers and toes into the holes before the **** breaks![/p][/quote]So a small pay cut & job security was to much to take then? so now job losses ? you get what you asked for & the left asked for this so have fun loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Tue 9 Oct 12

ohec says...

loosehead wrote:
ohec wrote:
It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford.
Did you say that when they striked under a Tory council?
I am not politically minded at all really as they all look after themselves, but i voted U.K.I.P at the last election. In my younger days i was a Tory until that Thatcher woman destroyed our country and we have never recovered, Labour are not much better and the LibDems are and have always been a non starter, our country has gone to the dogs and we need our total independence back to start restoring it hence my U.K.I.P vote.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford.[/p][/quote]Did you say that when they striked under a Tory council?[/p][/quote]I am not politically minded at all really as they all look after themselves, but i voted U.K.I.P at the last election. In my younger days i was a Tory until that Thatcher woman destroyed our country and we have never recovered, Labour are not much better and the LibDems are and have always been a non starter, our country has gone to the dogs and we need our total independence back to start restoring it hence my U.K.I.P vote. ohec
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Tue 9 Oct 12

ohec says...

loosehead wrote:
ohec wrote:
It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford.
Did you say that when they striked under a Tory council?
I am not politically minded at all really as they all look after themselves, but i voted U.K.I.P at the last election. In my younger days i was a Tory until that Thatcher woman destroyed our country and we have never recovered, Labour are not much better and the LibDems are and have always been a non starter, our country has gone to the dogs and we need our total independence back to start restoring it hence my U.K.I.P vote.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: It just goes to show how stupid the unions are and the sheep that follow them, it doesn't matter who is in power we are at the mercy of a global financial crisis and all the strikes and demonstrations in the world won't alter things. You only have to look at the rest of Europe and see what all of their demonstrations are achieving (nothing) this is not about any deficit that Labour left its far greater than that. The issue is how you deal with it and our present government have only one idea CUT CUT CUT hence Southampton's problems and in my opinion we should be investing in our future by spending and creating jobs and wealth, if our population are working they are spending and that in turn creates jobs. So don't knock S.C.C. its this useless government thats at fault and they are driving us further into recession maybe even a depression, yes cuts are needed especially in our benefits system but at the same time we need to create growth. Demonstrations are counter productive in so far as it costs millions to Police them millions we cant afford.[/p][/quote]Did you say that when they striked under a Tory council?[/p][/quote]I am not politically minded at all really as they all look after themselves, but i voted U.K.I.P at the last election. In my younger days i was a Tory until that Thatcher woman destroyed our country and we have never recovered, Labour are not much better and the LibDems are and have always been a non starter, our country has gone to the dogs and we need our total independence back to start restoring it hence my U.K.I.P vote. ohec
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Despite it being not sustainable. That's a theory. Sounds great on paper or from a fringe party that will never get elected, but it's not the reality, in which you are in complete denial of.

Grasp of basic economics - get one.
being sustainable a theory, you can't even see the simple answers to solutions.
Increase in population is an increase in the amount of funds coming in and an increase in work load, But if your to willing to put people in the dole, then its not going to be sustainanle, you need people working and for people to be working you need the jobs out there for them earn a reasonable wage to be able to spend in the economy and pay taxes.
and that is the very basic off any economy or is that to far advance for you to under stand.
'you can't even see the simple answers to solutions.'

You can't even explain your own parties own plans for 'no cuts' in any real detail whatsoever, so that's water off a ducks back I'm afraid.

You talk a lot but ultimately say nothing. It's just propaganda and spin, mostly talking to yourself by the looks of it.
Look basic money is a tool to be used, to have money you need to work, and when you have money you spend money and its that spending that keeps the economy moving.
Economys do not work with out money or exchange in goods that is the very basic of the matter.
And to have money or goods for exchange you need to earn it and that means work/job.
Making cuts where it means lower wages and/or job losses will effect the economy it will slump because there is less money being spend in the economy, and with less money coming in payment is going out in benefits and tax reductions, so what happens next more cuts are made and that cycle starts again and the economy slumps more.
The only way to break it is to keep people in work and keep getting reasonable wages, its the only way to stop an economy from slumping/
And if you can't under stand that, then you know a lot less than i do about an economy
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Despite it being not sustainable. That's a theory. Sounds great on paper or from a fringe party that will never get elected, but it's not the reality, in which you are in complete denial of. Grasp of basic economics - get one.[/p][/quote]being sustainable a theory, you can't even see the simple answers to solutions. Increase in population is an increase in the amount of funds coming in and an increase in work load, But if your to willing to put people in the dole, then its not going to be sustainanle, you need people working and for people to be working you need the jobs out there for them earn a reasonable wage to be able to spend in the economy and pay taxes. and that is the very basic off any economy or is that to far advance for you to under stand.[/p][/quote]'you can't even see the simple answers to solutions.' You can't even explain your own parties own plans for 'no cuts' in any real detail whatsoever, so that's water off a ducks back I'm afraid. You talk a lot but ultimately say nothing. It's just propaganda and spin, mostly talking to yourself by the looks of it.[/p][/quote]Look basic money is a tool to be used, to have money you need to work, and when you have money you spend money and its that spending that keeps the economy moving. Economys do not work with out money or exchange in goods that is the very basic of the matter. And to have money or goods for exchange you need to earn it and that means work/job. Making cuts where it means lower wages and/or job losses will effect the economy it will slump because there is less money being spend in the economy, and with less money coming in payment is going out in benefits and tax reductions, so what happens next more cuts are made and that cycle starts again and the economy slumps more. The only way to break it is to keep people in work and keep getting reasonable wages, its the only way to stop an economy from slumping/ And if you can't under stand that, then you know a lot less than i do about an economy southy
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Tue 9 Oct 12

long memory says...

I would like to see most unions obliterated,they appear to me to be a scourge on our country,all take and no give.I have been working class all my life,and thankfully never found unions other than a load of trouble makers,they lost all their credibility with the way they brought this country to its knees back in the 70's, disliked them ever since.
I would like to see most unions obliterated,they appear to me to be a scourge on our country,all take and no give.I have been working class all my life,and thankfully never found unions other than a load of trouble makers,they lost all their credibility with the way they brought this country to its knees back in the 70's, disliked them ever since. long memory
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
SaintsBTGOG wrote:
Its because of the UNIONS that council staff and cuts are being made. Those prats who voted labour simply because their bins where not emptied also have their hands dirty.


Labour and finances = clueless
How do you work that out when the Tory Council was going to make cuts before the unions was even told there was going to be job losses and any action was not even thought about
As a non elected candidate you seem to think you know it all don't you?
No i just remember what went on before, I was in the right place at the right time to being able to find out, i was there when the unions first found out what the Tory party council was going to do.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SaintsBTGOG[/bold] wrote: Its because of the UNIONS that council staff and cuts are being made. Those prats who voted labour simply because their bins where not emptied also have their hands dirty. Labour and finances = clueless[/p][/quote]How do you work that out when the Tory Council was going to make cuts before the unions was even told there was going to be job losses and any action was not even thought about[/p][/quote]As a non elected candidate you seem to think you know it all don't you?[/p][/quote]No i just remember what went on before, I was in the right place at the right time to being able to find out, i was there when the unions first found out what the Tory party council was going to do. southy
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Taskforce 141 wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
They shouldn't be immune, but just remember you said this when you start complaining vital council services are scrapped or modified. One thing is guaranteed - with job losses comes loss of service, there is no two ways about it, all teams are stretched thin as it is and come april when 300 people are axed (200 temp employees) it will be chaos, not to mention the following year when no doubt there will be further cuts.

you can only put so many fingers and toes into the holes before the **** breaks!
So a small pay cut & job security was to much to take then? so now job losses ? you get what you asked for & the left asked for this so have fun
Its the right that causing this mess, there greed for more money and power and no care what happens to people
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]They shouldn't be immune, but just remember you said this when you start complaining vital council services are scrapped or modified. One thing is guaranteed - with job losses comes loss of service, there is no two ways about it, all teams are stretched thin as it is and come april when 300 people are axed (200 temp employees) it will be chaos, not to mention the following year when no doubt there will be further cuts. you can only put so many fingers and toes into the holes before the **** breaks![/p][/quote]So a small pay cut & job security was to much to take then? so now job losses ? you get what you asked for & the left asked for this so have fun[/p][/quote]Its the right that causing this mess, there greed for more money and power and no care what happens to people southy
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Tue 9 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from?
Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from? Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?
No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.
Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion.

One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution.
May not be ideal, but the population is going to keep on increasing, and with that increase means the work load builds up on services if you do not match it with a % to the population then that work load will become to much and the system will collapse under the weight.

example would be, the bin men work 8 hours to do 1,000 homes, and then they build another 1,000 homes. what you going to do make those bin men work 16 hours and pay the extra 8 hours at time and half or employ another team.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?[/p][/quote]No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.[/p][/quote]Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion. One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution.[/p][/quote]May not be ideal, but the population is going to keep on increasing, and with that increase means the work load builds up on services if you do not match it with a % to the population then that work load will become to much and the system will collapse under the weight. example would be, the bin men work 8 hours to do 1,000 homes, and then they build another 1,000 homes. what you going to do make those bin men work 16 hours and pay the extra 8 hours at time and half or employ another team. southy
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Tue 9 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
.. as southy demonstrated yesterday, he can't even explain how TUSC would fund its manifesto committment of 'No Cuts'.

Now, not surprisingly I suppose, he wants to actually increase the public sector workforce.

.. and the location of the money tree is?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote].. as southy demonstrated yesterday, he can't even explain how TUSC would fund its manifesto committment of 'No Cuts'. Now, not surprisingly I suppose, he wants to actually increase the public sector workforce. .. and the location of the money tree is? freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from?
Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.
get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from? Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.[/p][/quote]get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services southy
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Tue 9 Oct 12

aldermoorboy says...

Union leaders in the UK only appear to be in it for themselves.
Looking at the views on here I believe Paramjit would make a good union leader, he is honest and respects all views. Good on you Paramjit, wish you were a Tory.
Union leaders in the UK only appear to be in it for themselves. Looking at the views on here I believe Paramjit would make a good union leader, he is honest and respects all views. Good on you Paramjit, wish you were a Tory. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
.. as southy demonstrated yesterday, he can't even explain how TUSC would fund its manifesto committment of 'No Cuts'.

Now, not surprisingly I suppose, he wants to actually increase the public sector workforce.

.. and the location of the money tree is?
increase in population means an increase in finance coming in.
so you would prefer to pay out more in benefits and have a council tax reduction.
where are you going to get the money to cover that is lost in having to pay benefits and less coming in though council tax.
please explain that.

Making no cuts means that cycle off money is staying at lest the same. and may inprove.
but to make cuts and that cycle of money drops, people get less money or lose there job, and they have got to put in for a reduction in council tax, housing benefits and other types of benefits that will come out of the tax funds
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote].. as southy demonstrated yesterday, he can't even explain how TUSC would fund its manifesto committment of 'No Cuts'. Now, not surprisingly I suppose, he wants to actually increase the public sector workforce. .. and the location of the money tree is?[/p][/quote]increase in population means an increase in finance coming in. so you would prefer to pay out more in benefits and have a council tax reduction. where are you going to get the money to cover that is lost in having to pay benefits and less coming in though council tax. please explain that. Making no cuts means that cycle off money is staying at lest the same. and may inprove. but to make cuts and that cycle of money drops, people get less money or lose there job, and they have got to put in for a reduction in council tax, housing benefits and other types of benefits that will come out of the tax funds southy
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Tue 9 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from?
Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.
get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services
At the moment, Southampton City Council employs around 9,000 people who serve the needs of the city's 220,000 residents. A ratio of just over 24:1
If the city cant sustain that ratio, how will they afford and sustain a ratio of 10:1?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from? Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.[/p][/quote]get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services[/p][/quote]At the moment, Southampton City Council employs around 9,000 people who serve the needs of the city's 220,000 residents. A ratio of just over 24:1 If the city cant sustain that ratio, how will they afford and sustain a ratio of 10:1? hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?
No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.
Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion.

One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution.
May not be ideal, but the population is going to keep on increasing, and with that increase means the work load builds up on services if you do not match it with a % to the population then that work load will become to much and the system will collapse under the weight.

example would be, the bin men work 8 hours to do 1,000 homes, and then they build another 1,000 homes. what you going to do make those bin men work 16 hours and pay the extra 8 hours at time and half or employ another team.
Southy as a socialist you should be talking about providing ‘efficient’ public services based on need, not on the basis of fixed percentage total population to be put into various professions, in this case public services.

As an intelligent and inventive person (sometime even author of pure fiction!!!) you should be aware that just because population number rises by 1000 does not mean that the same number of new houses will be built or even required.

Considering human race tends to shack up with opposite sex, for both pleasure and productive reasons, all of your 1000 new people may require only about 500 new homes.

Waste produced per head could also vary due to changing life styles. For example less material to be used for packing etc. will reduce amount of waste.

Nature of services required also keep on changing. For example depending upon rate of child birth, some time education sector will need more and sometime less employees.

I sincerely hope you can see the flaw in your basic off the cuff half baked idea, because otherwise while arguing for inflexible mode of employment which must keep a given percentage of human population into public sector somebody could easily accuse you of preaching for system very similar to most evil and wicked caste system of India, which still remains one of the worse scars of shame of the face of humanity.

Please accept the fact that protecting public services and forcing fixed percent of population into public sector are two different things, as a socialist your goal should be to get best value for money for the tax payer not just keep on protecting unproductive/ineffic
ient people like Trotskyite of convenience like Mike Tucker or others who are making good living for themselves while keep on selling the interests of their union members short, or sacrificing those at the alter of Closet Conservatives of Disraeli inspired NuLabour.

Yes for some it may be bit on the top, but in my opinion some of these puppets of NuLabour masquerading as union officers are no better than bloody slave traders of old times.

You should be demanding decent union officers, who provide value for money to members and good pay and working conditions for workers, who in turn should be providing decent an efficent services to the public
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?[/p][/quote]No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.[/p][/quote]Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion. One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution.[/p][/quote]May not be ideal, but the population is going to keep on increasing, and with that increase means the work load builds up on services if you do not match it with a % to the population then that work load will become to much and the system will collapse under the weight. example would be, the bin men work 8 hours to do 1,000 homes, and then they build another 1,000 homes. what you going to do make those bin men work 16 hours and pay the extra 8 hours at time and half or employ another team.[/p][/quote]Southy as a socialist you should be talking about providing ‘efficient’ public services based on need, not on the basis of fixed percentage total population to be put into various professions, in this case public services. As an intelligent and inventive person (sometime even author of pure fiction!!!) you should be aware that just because population number rises by 1000 does not mean that the same number of new houses will be built or even required. Considering human race tends to shack up with opposite sex, for both pleasure and productive reasons, all of your 1000 new people may require only about 500 new homes. Waste produced per head could also vary due to changing life styles. For example less material to be used for packing etc. will reduce amount of waste. Nature of services required also keep on changing. For example depending upon rate of child birth, some time education sector will need more and sometime less employees. I sincerely hope you can see the flaw in your basic off the cuff half baked idea, because otherwise while arguing for inflexible mode of employment which must keep a given percentage of human population into public sector somebody could easily accuse you of preaching for system very similar to most evil and wicked caste system of India, which still remains one of the worse scars of shame of the face of humanity. Please accept the fact that protecting public services and forcing fixed percent of population into public sector are two different things, as a socialist your goal should be to get best value for money for the tax payer not just keep on protecting unproductive/ineffic ient people like Trotskyite of convenience like Mike Tucker or others who are making good living for themselves while keep on selling the interests of their union members short, or sacrificing those at the alter of Closet Conservatives of Disraeli inspired NuLabour. Yes for some it may be bit on the top, but in my opinion some of these puppets of NuLabour masquerading as union officers are no better than bloody slave traders of old times. You should be demanding decent union officers, who provide value for money to members and good pay and working conditions for workers, who in turn should be providing decent an efficent services to the public Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
.. as southy demonstrated yesterday, he can't even explain how TUSC would fund its manifesto committment of 'No Cuts'.

Now, not surprisingly I suppose, he wants to actually increase the public sector workforce.

.. and the location of the money tree is?
Please please please tell me where is that tree?... I am broke need some money
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote].. as southy demonstrated yesterday, he can't even explain how TUSC would fund its manifesto committment of 'No Cuts'. Now, not surprisingly I suppose, he wants to actually increase the public sector workforce. .. and the location of the money tree is?[/p][/quote]Please please please tell me where is that tree?... I am broke need some money Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from?
Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.
get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services
At the moment, Southampton City Council employs around 9,000 people who serve the needs of the city's 220,000 residents. A ratio of just over 24:1
If the city cant sustain that ratio, how will they afford and sustain a ratio of 10:1?
Get the thinking cap on will ya, its not a ratio 10:1 now is it, it would remain the same ratio at 24:1.
The population go's up so that ratio go's up with it so not being 24:1 it ends up as 48:2 so you need to employ a person to bring that ratio back in line of 24:1 and those extra people living in the city pays council tax and maybe council rent also and it this extra that pays for the extra person in employment
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from? Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.[/p][/quote]get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services[/p][/quote]At the moment, Southampton City Council employs around 9,000 people who serve the needs of the city's 220,000 residents. A ratio of just over 24:1 If the city cant sustain that ratio, how will they afford and sustain a ratio of 10:1?[/p][/quote]Get the thinking cap on will ya, its not a ratio 10:1 now is it, it would remain the same ratio at 24:1. The population go's up so that ratio go's up with it so not being 24:1 it ends up as 48:2 so you need to employ a person to bring that ratio back in line of 24:1 and those extra people living in the city pays council tax and maybe council rent also and it this extra that pays for the extra person in employment southy
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Taskforce 141 wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
They shouldn't be immune, but just remember you said this when you start complaining vital council services are scrapped or modified. One thing is guaranteed - with job losses comes loss of service, there is no two ways about it, all teams are stretched thin as it is and come april when 300 people are axed (200 temp employees) it will be chaos, not to mention the following year when no doubt there will be further cuts.

you can only put so many fingers and toes into the holes before the **** breaks!
So a small pay cut & job security was to much to take then? so now job losses ? you get what you asked for & the left asked for this so have fun
Its the right that causing this mess, there greed for more money and power and no care what happens to people
If we didn't know better this response could have been posted by a 5 year old.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]They shouldn't be immune, but just remember you said this when you start complaining vital council services are scrapped or modified. One thing is guaranteed - with job losses comes loss of service, there is no two ways about it, all teams are stretched thin as it is and come april when 300 people are axed (200 temp employees) it will be chaos, not to mention the following year when no doubt there will be further cuts. you can only put so many fingers and toes into the holes before the **** breaks![/p][/quote]So a small pay cut & job security was to much to take then? so now job losses ? you get what you asked for & the left asked for this so have fun[/p][/quote]Its the right that causing this mess, there greed for more money and power and no care what happens to people[/p][/quote]If we didn't know better this response could have been posted by a 5 year old. Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Tue 9 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from?
Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.
get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services
At the moment, Southampton City Council employs around 9,000 people who serve the needs of the city's 220,000 residents. A ratio of just over 24:1
If the city cant sustain that ratio, how will they afford and sustain a ratio of 10:1?
Get the thinking cap on will ya, its not a ratio 10:1 now is it, it would remain the same ratio at 24:1.
The population go's up so that ratio go's up with it so not being 24:1 it ends up as 48:2 so you need to employ a person to bring that ratio back in line of 24:1 and those extra people living in the city pays council tax and maybe council rent also and it this extra that pays for the extra person in employment
But the current ratio cannot be sustained. So the ratio will get higher than 24:1 and your 10:1 ratio increase will also be unaffordable.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from? Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.[/p][/quote]get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services[/p][/quote]At the moment, Southampton City Council employs around 9,000 people who serve the needs of the city's 220,000 residents. A ratio of just over 24:1 If the city cant sustain that ratio, how will they afford and sustain a ratio of 10:1?[/p][/quote]Get the thinking cap on will ya, its not a ratio 10:1 now is it, it would remain the same ratio at 24:1. The population go's up so that ratio go's up with it so not being 24:1 it ends up as 48:2 so you need to employ a person to bring that ratio back in line of 24:1 and those extra people living in the city pays council tax and maybe council rent also and it this extra that pays for the extra person in employment[/p][/quote]But the current ratio cannot be sustained. So the ratio will get higher than 24:1 and your 10:1 ratio increase will also be unaffordable. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?
No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.
Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion.

One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution.
May not be ideal, but the population is going to keep on increasing, and with that increase means the work load builds up on services if you do not match it with a % to the population then that work load will become to much and the system will collapse under the weight.

example would be, the bin men work 8 hours to do 1,000 homes, and then they build another 1,000 homes. what you going to do make those bin men work 16 hours and pay the extra 8 hours at time and half or employ another team.
Southy as a socialist you should be talking about providing ‘efficient’ public services based on need, not on the basis of fixed percentage total population to be put into various professions, in this case public services.

As an intelligent and inventive person (sometime even author of pure fiction!!!) you should be aware that just because population number rises by 1000 does not mean that the same number of new houses will be built or even required.

Considering human race tends to shack up with opposite sex, for both pleasure and productive reasons, all of your 1000 new people may require only about 500 new homes.

Waste produced per head could also vary due to changing life styles. For example less material to be used for packing etc. will reduce amount of waste.

Nature of services required also keep on changing. For example depending upon rate of child birth, some time education sector will need more and sometime less employees.

I sincerely hope you can see the flaw in your basic off the cuff half baked idea, because otherwise while arguing for inflexible mode of employment which must keep a given percentage of human population into public sector somebody could easily accuse you of preaching for system very similar to most evil and wicked caste system of India, which still remains one of the worse scars of shame of the face of humanity.

Please accept the fact that protecting public services and forcing fixed percent of population into public sector are two different things, as a socialist your goal should be to get best value for money for the tax payer not just keep on protecting unproductive/ineffic

ient people like Trotskyite of convenience like Mike Tucker or others who are making good living for themselves while keep on selling the interests of their union members short, or sacrificing those at the alter of Closet Conservatives of Disraeli inspired NuLabour.

Yes for some it may be bit on the top, but in my opinion some of these puppets of NuLabour masquerading as union officers are no better than bloody slave traders of old times.

You should be demanding decent union officers, who provide value for money to members and good pay and working conditions for workers, who in turn should be providing decent an efficent services to the public
Paramjit think will you, if the city population (you know the number of people living in the city) stays the same ok it might work your way, BUT the city population is going up increasing in numbers, what you going to do about the extra work load, sit on it and watch the work load increase on the workers that are all ready there.
I can see the complains now if that was to happen, people would be moaning because there bins not been emptied for the last 4 weeks, grass not getting cut in 2 mths and all the others things where the service would be under staff.
You can only provide value for service if you employ the right amount of staff for things to fuction the way they should run, under staffing services will produce a poorly run services and only part of the job being done rightly
And I should not be demanding any thing from the Unions, that is down to the rank and file of that Union, all I can do is point at things that maybe wrong, but its down to the union members them selfs to say and demand.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?[/p][/quote]No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.[/p][/quote]Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion. One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution.[/p][/quote]May not be ideal, but the population is going to keep on increasing, and with that increase means the work load builds up on services if you do not match it with a % to the population then that work load will become to much and the system will collapse under the weight. example would be, the bin men work 8 hours to do 1,000 homes, and then they build another 1,000 homes. what you going to do make those bin men work 16 hours and pay the extra 8 hours at time and half or employ another team.[/p][/quote]Southy as a socialist you should be talking about providing ‘efficient’ public services based on need, not on the basis of fixed percentage total population to be put into various professions, in this case public services. As an intelligent and inventive person (sometime even author of pure fiction!!!) you should be aware that just because population number rises by 1000 does not mean that the same number of new houses will be built or even required. Considering human race tends to shack up with opposite sex, for both pleasure and productive reasons, all of your 1000 new people may require only about 500 new homes. Waste produced per head could also vary due to changing life styles. For example less material to be used for packing etc. will reduce amount of waste. Nature of services required also keep on changing. For example depending upon rate of child birth, some time education sector will need more and sometime less employees. I sincerely hope you can see the flaw in your basic off the cuff half baked idea, because otherwise while arguing for inflexible mode of employment which must keep a given percentage of human population into public sector somebody could easily accuse you of preaching for system very similar to most evil and wicked caste system of India, which still remains one of the worse scars of shame of the face of humanity. Please accept the fact that protecting public services and forcing fixed percent of population into public sector are two different things, as a socialist your goal should be to get best value for money for the tax payer not just keep on protecting unproductive/ineffic ient people like Trotskyite of convenience like Mike Tucker or others who are making good living for themselves while keep on selling the interests of their union members short, or sacrificing those at the alter of Closet Conservatives of Disraeli inspired NuLabour. Yes for some it may be bit on the top, but in my opinion some of these puppets of NuLabour masquerading as union officers are no better than bloody slave traders of old times. You should be demanding decent union officers, who provide value for money to members and good pay and working conditions for workers, who in turn should be providing decent an efficent services to the public[/p][/quote]Paramjit think will you, if the city population (you know the number of people living in the city) stays the same ok it might work your way, BUT the city population is going up increasing in numbers, what you going to do about the extra work load, sit on it and watch the work load increase on the workers that are all ready there. I can see the complains now if that was to happen, people would be moaning because there bins not been emptied for the last 4 weeks, grass not getting cut in 2 mths and all the others things where the service would be under staff. You can only provide value for service if you employ the right amount of staff for things to fuction the way they should run, under staffing services will produce a poorly run services and only part of the job being done rightly And I should not be demanding any thing from the Unions, that is down to the rank and file of that Union, all I can do is point at things that maybe wrong, but its down to the union members them selfs to say and demand. southy
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from?
Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.
get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services
At the moment, Southampton City Council employs around 9,000 people who serve the needs of the city's 220,000 residents. A ratio of just over 24:1
If the city cant sustain that ratio, how will they afford and sustain a ratio of 10:1?
Get the thinking cap on will ya, its not a ratio 10:1 now is it, it would remain the same ratio at 24:1.
The population go's up so that ratio go's up with it so not being 24:1 it ends up as 48:2 so you need to employ a person to bring that ratio back in line of 24:1 and those extra people living in the city pays council tax and maybe council rent also and it this extra that pays for the extra person in employment
But the current ratio cannot be sustained. So the ratio will get higher than 24:1 and your 10:1 ratio increase will also be unaffordable.
How is it 10 to 1 now dont be silly, for that to happen of a 10-1 ratio would mean the city population going down (less people living in the city), but is not going down now is it, the population is going up (you know more people living in the city)
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Really, how do you fund that then? Employ 1 extra person, on say a salary of 25k. Add on his pension contributions, expenses, telephone calls, company national insurance payments etc, and lets be conservative, all that costs 35k a year. How many extra household to pay council tax is that? Multiply that by 10, then 100 extra staff, where are all these funds coming from? Get real Southy, cuts and job losses are inevitable.[/p][/quote]get with it you. i said a % of the population like if the population went up say 1000 people, then 10 people would be needed extra to be employed in services[/p][/quote]At the moment, Southampton City Council employs around 9,000 people who serve the needs of the city's 220,000 residents. A ratio of just over 24:1 If the city cant sustain that ratio, how will they afford and sustain a ratio of 10:1?[/p][/quote]Get the thinking cap on will ya, its not a ratio 10:1 now is it, it would remain the same ratio at 24:1. The population go's up so that ratio go's up with it so not being 24:1 it ends up as 48:2 so you need to employ a person to bring that ratio back in line of 24:1 and those extra people living in the city pays council tax and maybe council rent also and it this extra that pays for the extra person in employment[/p][/quote]But the current ratio cannot be sustained. So the ratio will get higher than 24:1 and your 10:1 ratio increase will also be unaffordable.[/p][/quote]How is it 10 to 1 now dont be silly, for that to happen of a 10-1 ratio would mean the city population going down (less people living in the city), but is not going down now is it, the population is going up (you know more people living in the city) southy
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

hulla baloo
have they or have they not built more homes in the city.
answer is yes, so these new homes have people living in them and they require services do they or do they not
answer again is yes, so what you going to do put this extra work load on the workers if you do this then your bill going to be higher because you will need to pay out over time at time and a half, or employ an extra person to take up the extra work, and don't for get these new homes will be paying Council Tax for there services.
hulla baloo have they or have they not built more homes in the city. answer is yes, so these new homes have people living in them and they require services do they or do they not answer again is yes, so what you going to do put this extra work load on the workers if you do this then your bill going to be higher because you will need to pay out over time at time and a half, or employ an extra person to take up the extra work, and don't for get these new homes will be paying Council Tax for there services. southy
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20.

Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.
Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?
Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.
Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?
No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.
Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion.

One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution.
May not be ideal, but the population is going to keep on increasing, and with that increase means the work load builds up on services if you do not match it with a % to the population then that work load will become to much and the system will collapse under the weight.

example would be, the bin men work 8 hours to do 1,000 homes, and then they build another 1,000 homes. what you going to do make those bin men work 16 hours and pay the extra 8 hours at time and half or employ another team.
Southy as a socialist you should be talking about providing ‘efficient’ public services based on need, not on the basis of fixed percentage total population to be put into various professions, in this case public services.

As an intelligent and inventive person (sometime even author of pure fiction!!!) you should be aware that just because population number rises by 1000 does not mean that the same number of new houses will be built or even required.

Considering human race tends to shack up with opposite sex, for both pleasure and productive reasons, all of your 1000 new people may require only about 500 new homes.

Waste produced per head could also vary due to changing life styles. For example less material to be used for packing etc. will reduce amount of waste.

Nature of services required also keep on changing. For example depending upon rate of child birth, some time education sector will need more and sometime less employees.

I sincerely hope you can see the flaw in your basic off the cuff half baked idea, because otherwise while arguing for inflexible mode of employment which must keep a given percentage of human population into public sector somebody could easily accuse you of preaching for system very similar to most evil and wicked caste system of India, which still remains one of the worse scars of shame of the face of humanity.

Please accept the fact that protecting public services and forcing fixed percent of population into public sector are two different things, as a socialist your goal should be to get best value for money for the tax payer not just keep on protecting unproductive/ineffic


ient people like Trotskyite of convenience like Mike Tucker or others who are making good living for themselves while keep on selling the interests of their union members short, or sacrificing those at the alter of Closet Conservatives of Disraeli inspired NuLabour.

Yes for some it may be bit on the top, but in my opinion some of these puppets of NuLabour masquerading as union officers are no better than bloody slave traders of old times.

You should be demanding decent union officers, who provide value for money to members and good pay and working conditions for workers, who in turn should be providing decent an efficent services to the public
Paramjit think will you, if the city population (you know the number of people living in the city) stays the same ok it might work your way, BUT the city population is going up increasing in numbers, what you going to do about the extra work load, sit on it and watch the work load increase on the workers that are all ready there.
I can see the complains now if that was to happen, people would be moaning because there bins not been emptied for the last 4 weeks, grass not getting cut in 2 mths and all the others things where the service would be under staff.
You can only provide value for service if you employ the right amount of staff for things to fuction the way they should run, under staffing services will produce a poorly run services and only part of the job being done rightly
And I should not be demanding any thing from the Unions, that is down to the rank and file of that Union, all I can do is point at things that maybe wrong, but its down to the union members them selfs to say and demand.
Agree with your last point.

But fail to understand your idea of fixed percentage of population to be pushed into public sector employment.

Modern equipment and advanced work practices of today require less people to provide same service as it may have done in the past.

As you have raised bin men for example. These days we need few waste collectors than under the old system when Lorries lacked the mechanical system to empty waste in Lorries and dustbins were manually carried to the lorries, sometimes even from back gardens.

As you are aware with computerised system in offices these days more work can be done by less people. Modern transport means time saved to travelling to various jobs etc etc.

In my view your argument is not only flawed but also appears to be against progress.

Surely as a socialist you can't afford to be in the same boat as Ed Milliband who is inspired by Tory Disraeli, because be appearing to be anti change/evolutionary progress somebody could easily suggest that you may also be trying to push the tide back to his times, when more people were required to do most of the similar jobs than these days and workers rights were virtually nil.

You do not need fixed percentage of population to provide services, but sufficient number of people to do the job properly.

If your hero Trotsky was to create red army today, do you really think he will be silly enough to go for the same number of men for gun fodder and for horses and carts for transport? I doubt it.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Meanwh i l e , union members from across Hampshire are planning to join a national demonstration against cuts to public services and jobs on October 20. Thats the TUC demo rally in london, the one last year put around 1 million people on the streets of London and this year its expected to be even bigger.[/p][/quote]Hard as it maybe, please justify why the public service workers should be immune from job losses and pay cuts?[/p][/quote]Public services employment should increase in the number of jobs to a % of the population increase all the time.[/p][/quote]Southy are you sure that it is the policy of your Socialist Party or of TUSC or you have invented the policy on the hoof?[/p][/quote]No its not a policy at all, its what should happen but don't, and increase in population means an increase in work load, it also means (well should be if there was enough jobs to employ people) increase in funds coming in.[/p][/quote]Thanks for confirming that it is your own opinion. One of the argument against your well intentioned idea could be that with ever changing requirements of society, nature of services required may be different at various stages. So allocation of fixed percentage of total population for certain specific purpose may not be an ideal economic solution.[/p][/quote]May not be ideal, but the population is going to keep on increasing, and with that increase means the work load builds up on services if you do not match it with a % to the population then that work load will become to much and the system will collapse under the weight. example would be, the bin men work 8 hours to do 1,000 homes, and then they build another 1,000 homes. what you going to do make those bin men work 16 hours and pay the extra 8 hours at time and half or employ another team.[/p][/quote]Southy as a socialist you should be talking about providing ‘efficient’ public services based on need, not on the basis of fixed percentage total population to be put into various professions, in this case public services. As an intelligent and inventive person (sometime even author of pure fiction!!!) you should be aware that just because population number rises by 1000 does not mean that the same number of new houses will be built or even required. Considering human race tends to shack up with opposite sex, for both pleasure and productive reasons, all of your 1000 new people may require only about 500 new homes. Waste produced per head could also vary due to changing life styles. For example less material to be used for packing etc. will reduce amount of waste. Nature of services required also keep on changing. For example depending upon rate of child birth, some time education sector will need more and sometime less employees. I sincerely hope you can see the flaw in your basic off the cuff half baked idea, because otherwise while arguing for inflexible mode of employment which must keep a given percentage of human population into public sector somebody could easily accuse you of preaching for system very similar to most evil and wicked caste system of India, which still remains one of the worse scars of shame of the face of humanity. Please accept the fact that protecting public services and forcing fixed percent of population into public sector are two different things, as a socialist your goal should be to get best value for money for the tax payer not just keep on protecting unproductive/ineffic ient people like Trotskyite of convenience like Mike Tucker or others who are making good living for themselves while keep on selling the interests of their union members short, or sacrificing those at the alter of Closet Conservatives of Disraeli inspired NuLabour. Yes for some it may be bit on the top, but in my opinion some of these puppets of NuLabour masquerading as union officers are no better than bloody slave traders of old times. You should be demanding decent union officers, who provide value for money to members and good pay and working conditions for workers, who in turn should be providing decent an efficent services to the public[/p][/quote]Paramjit think will you, if the city population (you know the number of people living in the city) stays the same ok it might work your way, BUT the city population is going up increasing in numbers, what you going to do about the extra work load, sit on it and watch the work load increase on the workers that are all ready there. I can see the complains now if that was to happen, people would be moaning because there bins not been emptied for the last 4 weeks, grass not getting cut in 2 mths and all the others things where the service would be under staff. You can only provide value for service if you employ the right amount of staff for things to fuction the way they should run, under staffing services will produce a poorly run services and only part of the job being done rightly And I should not be demanding any thing from the Unions, that is down to the rank and file of that Union, all I can do is point at things that maybe wrong, but its down to the union members them selfs to say and demand.[/p][/quote]Agree with your last point. But fail to understand your idea of fixed percentage of population to be pushed into public sector employment. Modern equipment and advanced work practices of today require less people to provide same service as it may have done in the past. As you have raised bin men for example. These days we need few waste collectors than under the old system when Lorries lacked the mechanical system to empty waste in Lorries and dustbins were manually carried to the lorries, sometimes even from back gardens. As you are aware with computerised system in offices these days more work can be done by less people. Modern transport means time saved to travelling to various jobs etc etc. In my view your argument is not only flawed but also appears to be against progress. Surely as a socialist you can't afford to be in the same boat as Ed Milliband who is inspired by Tory Disraeli, because be appearing to be anti change/evolutionary progress somebody could easily suggest that you may also be trying to push the tide back to his times, when more people were required to do most of the similar jobs than these days and workers rights were virtually nil. You do not need fixed percentage of population to provide services, but sufficient number of people to do the job properly. If your hero Trotsky was to create red army today, do you really think he will be silly enough to go for the same number of men for gun fodder and for horses and carts for transport? I doubt it. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Tue 9 Oct 12

BlackSwan86 says...

Simon Letts used to be my Science teacher! Ask him to do his dinosaur impression! Hahaha
Simon Letts used to be my Science teacher! Ask him to do his dinosaur impression! Hahaha BlackSwan86
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Tue 9 Oct 12

George4th says...

"As you are aware with computerised system in offices these days more work can be done by less people. Modern transport means time saved to travelling to various jobs etc etc.

In my view your argument is not only flawed but also appears to be against progress. "

Succinctly put and eventually it will mean more jobs can be lost at SCC!

P.S. What happens when the Unions finally catch up and modernise? Should be able to fit them all in a Caravan with an Ipad!
"As you are aware with computerised system in offices these days more work can be done by less people. Modern transport means time saved to travelling to various jobs etc etc. In my view your argument is not only flawed but also appears to be against progress. " Succinctly put and eventually it will mean more jobs can be lost at SCC! P.S. What happens when the Unions finally catch up and modernise? Should be able to fit them all in a Caravan with an Ipad! George4th
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Tue 9 Oct 12

IronLady2010 says...

It's like a merry-go round, cut pay, workers strike, give them back their pay, they go back to work. Take away jobs and they kick off again.

Time to ask Santa for an incinerator in readiness for the next round of strikes.
It's like a merry-go round, cut pay, workers strike, give them back their pay, they go back to work. Take away jobs and they kick off again. Time to ask Santa for an incinerator in readiness for the next round of strikes. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

George4th wrote:
"As you are aware with computerised system in offices these days more work can be done by less people. Modern transport means time saved to travelling to various jobs etc etc.

In my view your argument is not only flawed but also appears to be against progress. "

Succinctly put and eventually it will mean more jobs can be lost at SCC!

P.S. What happens when the Unions finally catch up and modernise? Should be able to fit them all in a Caravan with an Ipad!
It will depend upon who is given the iPad.

Hope you remember what happened when County Council gave computer to Tory Fredie when he was the leader of Hampshire County Council....
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: "As you are aware with computerised system in offices these days more work can be done by less people. Modern transport means time saved to travelling to various jobs etc etc. In my view your argument is not only flawed but also appears to be against progress. " Succinctly put and eventually it will mean more jobs can be lost at SCC! P.S. What happens when the Unions finally catch up and modernise? Should be able to fit them all in a Caravan with an Ipad![/p][/quote]It will depend upon who is given the iPad. Hope you remember what happened when County Council gave computer to Tory Fredie when he was the leader of Hampshire County Council.... Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Tue 9 Oct 12

George4th says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
George4th wrote:
"As you are aware with computerised system in offices these days more work can be done by less people. Modern transport means time saved to travelling to various jobs etc etc.

In my view your argument is not only flawed but also appears to be against progress. "

Succinctly put and eventually it will mean more jobs can be lost at SCC!

P.S. What happens when the Unions finally catch up and modernise? Should be able to fit them all in a Caravan with an Ipad!
It will depend upon who is given the iPad.

Hope you remember what happened when County Council gave computer to Tory Fredie when he was the leader of Hampshire County Council....
"It will depend upon who is given the iPad."

:-)
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: "As you are aware with computerised system in offices these days more work can be done by less people. Modern transport means time saved to travelling to various jobs etc etc. In my view your argument is not only flawed but also appears to be against progress. " Succinctly put and eventually it will mean more jobs can be lost at SCC! P.S. What happens when the Unions finally catch up and modernise? Should be able to fit them all in a Caravan with an Ipad![/p][/quote]It will depend upon who is given the iPad. Hope you remember what happened when County Council gave computer to Tory Fredie when he was the leader of Hampshire County Council....[/p][/quote]"It will depend upon who is given the iPad." :-) George4th
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Tue 9 Oct 12

loosehead says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
It's like a merry-go round, cut pay, workers strike, give them back their pay, they go back to work. Take away jobs and they kick off again.

Time to ask Santa for an incinerator in readiness for the next round of strikes.
Ironlady if these idiotic union leaders had actually negotiated with the Tory council before industrial action & then in talks with ACAS instead of promising their members big pay outs through legal action we wouldn't be in this mess.
A low pay cut & relatively job security sounds a good deal compared to Labours offerings.
These Unions heard what Williams said on telly & to the Echo only to refute it after talking to his party.
The Unions knew what they were going to do so why not take the best deal going for their members which was the Tory deal?
Mike Tucker & his fellow Union Leader were playing politics with their members livelihoods & now it's come back to bite them in the bum.
Do they accept any responsibility in this chaos? do they Blame Labour for lying to them? Or do they blame the Government & talk about National strikes like that idiotic leader of Unite?
They should sit down with the Tory Party & see what they propose & maybe if it's the best deal for their members they should throw their support behind the Tories but that will not happen as that would be admitting they the Unions were wrong
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: It's like a merry-go round, cut pay, workers strike, give them back their pay, they go back to work. Take away jobs and they kick off again. Time to ask Santa for an incinerator in readiness for the next round of strikes.[/p][/quote]Ironlady if these idiotic union leaders had actually negotiated with the Tory council before industrial action & then in talks with ACAS instead of promising their members big pay outs through legal action we wouldn't be in this mess. A low pay cut & relatively job security sounds a good deal compared to Labours offerings. These Unions heard what Williams said on telly & to the Echo only to refute it after talking to his party. The Unions knew what they were going to do so why not take the best deal going for their members which was the Tory deal? Mike Tucker & his fellow Union Leader were playing politics with their members livelihoods & now it's come back to bite them in the bum. Do they accept any responsibility in this chaos? do they Blame Labour for lying to them? Or do they blame the Government & talk about National strikes like that idiotic leader of Unite? They should sit down with the Tory Party & see what they propose & maybe if it's the best deal for their members they should throw their support behind the Tories but that will not happen as that would be admitting they the Unions were wrong loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Tue 9 Oct 12

IronLady2010 says...

loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
It's like a merry-go round, cut pay, workers strike, give them back their pay, they go back to work. Take away jobs and they kick off again.

Time to ask Santa for an incinerator in readiness for the next round of strikes.
Ironlady if these idiotic union leaders had actually negotiated with the Tory council before industrial action & then in talks with ACAS instead of promising their members big pay outs through legal action we wouldn't be in this mess.
A low pay cut & relatively job security sounds a good deal compared to Labours offerings.
These Unions heard what Williams said on telly & to the Echo only to refute it after talking to his party.
The Unions knew what they were going to do so why not take the best deal going for their members which was the Tory deal?
Mike Tucker & his fellow Union Leader were playing politics with their members livelihoods & now it's come back to bite them in the bum.
Do they accept any responsibility in this chaos? do they Blame Labour for lying to them? Or do they blame the Government & talk about National strikes like that idiotic leader of Unite?
They should sit down with the Tory Party & see what they propose & maybe if it's the best deal for their members they should throw their support behind the Tories but that will not happen as that would be admitting they the Unions were wrong
Loosehead,would you agree that the timing is strange? Not so long back the Unions asked members to vote to stop the strikes knowing full well, the new budget was coming.

I wonder how Union members would have voted knowing these cuts was now hovering over their heads.

Call me suspicious or paranoid, but are the Union Leaders in bed with Labour bosses and ignoring members and even doing the dirty on them?

I know the last dispute was over the previous pay cuts, but something smells fishy here.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: It's like a merry-go round, cut pay, workers strike, give them back their pay, they go back to work. Take away jobs and they kick off again. Time to ask Santa for an incinerator in readiness for the next round of strikes.[/p][/quote]Ironlady if these idiotic union leaders had actually negotiated with the Tory council before industrial action & then in talks with ACAS instead of promising their members big pay outs through legal action we wouldn't be in this mess. A low pay cut & relatively job security sounds a good deal compared to Labours offerings. These Unions heard what Williams said on telly & to the Echo only to refute it after talking to his party. The Unions knew what they were going to do so why not take the best deal going for their members which was the Tory deal? Mike Tucker & his fellow Union Leader were playing politics with their members livelihoods & now it's come back to bite them in the bum. Do they accept any responsibility in this chaos? do they Blame Labour for lying to them? Or do they blame the Government & talk about National strikes like that idiotic leader of Unite? They should sit down with the Tory Party & see what they propose & maybe if it's the best deal for their members they should throw their support behind the Tories but that will not happen as that would be admitting they the Unions were wrong[/p][/quote]Loosehead,would you agree that the timing is strange? Not so long back the Unions asked members to vote to stop the strikes knowing full well, the new budget was coming. I wonder how Union members would have voted knowing these cuts was now hovering over their heads. Call me suspicious or paranoid, but are the Union Leaders in bed with Labour bosses and ignoring members and even doing the dirty on them? I know the last dispute was over the previous pay cuts, but something smells fishy here. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Tue 9 Oct 12

loosehead says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
It's like a merry-go round, cut pay, workers strike, give them back their pay, they go back to work. Take away jobs and they kick off again.

Time to ask Santa for an incinerator in readiness for the next round of strikes.
Ironlady if these idiotic union leaders had actually negotiated with the Tory council before industrial action & then in talks with ACAS instead of promising their members big pay outs through legal action we wouldn't be in this mess.
A low pay cut & relatively job security sounds a good deal compared to Labours offerings.
These Unions heard what Williams said on telly & to the Echo only to refute it after talking to his party.
The Unions knew what they were going to do so why not take the best deal going for their members which was the Tory deal?
Mike Tucker & his fellow Union Leader were playing politics with their members livelihoods & now it's come back to bite them in the bum.
Do they accept any responsibility in this chaos? do they Blame Labour for lying to them? Or do they blame the Government & talk about National strikes like that idiotic leader of Unite?
They should sit down with the Tory Party & see what they propose & maybe if it's the best deal for their members they should throw their support behind the Tories but that will not happen as that would be admitting they the Unions were wrong
Loosehead,would you agree that the timing is strange? Not so long back the Unions asked members to vote to stop the strikes knowing full well, the new budget was coming.

I wonder how Union members would have voted knowing these cuts was now hovering over their heads.

Call me suspicious or paranoid, but are the Union Leaders in bed with Labour bosses and ignoring members and even doing the dirty on them?

I know the last dispute was over the previous pay cuts, but something smells fishy here.
Before the vote I talked to a few Refuse collectors & they said they had been shafted by the Unions & they wanted to delay the vote or they would not vote.
Well the figures speak for themselves don't they? 43% & 35% voted?
Ironlady Williams Said all this would happen I repeated it on here & took all forms of abuse from Labour & the Unions.
They all denied he said it then he came back & denied it blaming the Echo for mis-quoting him.
These Unions knew this was happening but they led their members to the edge & now they're falling off they say strike?
This Really makes the Tory case of telling the Unions & of trying to save jobs to be the truth doesn't it?
Did you see Boris today?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: It's like a merry-go round, cut pay, workers strike, give them back their pay, they go back to work. Take away jobs and they kick off again. Time to ask Santa for an incinerator in readiness for the next round of strikes.[/p][/quote]Ironlady if these idiotic union leaders had actually negotiated with the Tory council before industrial action & then in talks with ACAS instead of promising their members big pay outs through legal action we wouldn't be in this mess. A low pay cut & relatively job security sounds a good deal compared to Labours offerings. These Unions heard what Williams said on telly & to the Echo only to refute it after talking to his party. The Unions knew what they were going to do so why not take the best deal going for their members which was the Tory deal? Mike Tucker & his fellow Union Leader were playing politics with their members livelihoods & now it's come back to bite them in the bum. Do they accept any responsibility in this chaos? do they Blame Labour for lying to them? Or do they blame the Government & talk about National strikes like that idiotic leader of Unite? They should sit down with the Tory Party & see what they propose & maybe if it's the best deal for their members they should throw their support behind the Tories but that will not happen as that would be admitting they the Unions were wrong[/p][/quote]Loosehead,would you agree that the timing is strange? Not so long back the Unions asked members to vote to stop the strikes knowing full well, the new budget was coming. I wonder how Union members would have voted knowing these cuts was now hovering over their heads. Call me suspicious or paranoid, but are the Union Leaders in bed with Labour bosses and ignoring members and even doing the dirty on them? I know the last dispute was over the previous pay cuts, but something smells fishy here.[/p][/quote]Before the vote I talked to a few Refuse collectors & they said they had been shafted by the Unions & they wanted to delay the vote or they would not vote. Well the figures speak for themselves don't they? 43% & 35% voted? Ironlady Williams Said all this would happen I repeated it on here & took all forms of abuse from Labour & the Unions. They all denied he said it then he came back & denied it blaming the Echo for mis-quoting him. These Unions knew this was happening but they led their members to the edge & now they're falling off they say strike? This Really makes the Tory case of telling the Unions & of trying to save jobs to be the truth doesn't it? Did you see Boris today? loosehead
  • 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