Southampton's battle plans drawn up for cruise terminal dispute with Liverpool

Daily Echo: Cruise ships alongside Southampton Docks Cruise ships alongside Southampton Docks

TOP-LEVEL talks have taken place in Southampton to draw up battle plans against Liverpool’s bid to poach some of the city’s cruise trade.

A powerful lobbying group is forming in Hampshire as Government ministers mull over moves to allow the Merseyside city to host the start and finish of voyages.

The Daily Echo can reveal that Southampton port director Doug Morrison and city council leader Cllr Royston Smith have met to discuss a joint approach.

Business leaders and MPs will also now be briefed on ways they can help fight the controversial scheme.

As previously reported, Liverpool was handed £21m of taxpayers’ money for a new terminal – on the condition that it operated as a one-stop destination. Its port bosses now want to pay back £5.3m of that sum for the right to become a ‘turnaround’ port.

Government ministers have launched a consultation, which ends on September 15.

Port bosses in Southampton are preparing a lengthy objection.

The city council will also make its opposition known.

MPs including Caroline Nokes (Romsey and S o u t h a m p t o n North) and Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) have already written.

Cllr Smith said: “We want a high-profile and powerful lobbying group so that the ministers understand our point of view and the strength of feeling here. The more people we can get involved the better.

“This is a port of national significance and while I don’t want Liverpool to be at a disadvantage, they should not be able to use public money.

“We need to have a collective submission that shows the weight of opinion.

“It is imperative that as many people as possible get on board.

Liverpoool have got such a well-orchestrated lobbying group. We need to make sure we are equally as organised in Southampton.”

Yesterday, Liverpool City Council leader Joe Anderson volunteered to hold peace talks with Southampton on the matter.

His offer came just 24 hours after the Daily Echo revealed how plans for a £30m fifth cruise terminal in Southampton may be delayed by a year or scrapped altogether depending on the result of the consultation.

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:02pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

I notice that the Shadow Trade Secretary is not taking part in these talks. Surely he should back his constituents in this case? No word from Whitehead either.
I notice that the Shadow Trade Secretary is not taking part in these talks. Surely he should back his constituents in this case? No word from Whitehead either. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

2:08pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Linesman says...

I think it stupid to talk in terms of 'Battle Plans.'

In the current financial situation, the government will give Liverpool the go-ahead, because they will see it in terms of bringing money into the country, and whether it is Liverpool or Southampton, they will not be fussy.

If negotiations take place, it will be up to Southampton's negotiatiors to get the best agreement that they can, without resorting to a slanging match.
I think it stupid to talk in terms of 'Battle Plans.' In the current financial situation, the government will give Liverpool the go-ahead, because they will see it in terms of bringing money into the country, and whether it is Liverpool or Southampton, they will not be fussy. If negotiations take place, it will be up to Southampton's negotiatiors to get the best agreement that they can, without resorting to a slanging match. Linesman
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Fri 5 Aug 11

southy says...

Wasting more money, in an area where the ships don't even have a british crew as a work force.
Wasting more money, in an area where the ships don't even have a british crew as a work force. southy
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Fri 5 Aug 11

SaintAsh1964 says...

Linesman wrote:
I think it stupid to talk in terms of 'Battle Plans.'

In the current financial situation, the government will give Liverpool the go-ahead, because they will see it in terms of bringing money into the country, and whether it is Liverpool or Southampton, they will not be fussy.

If negotiations take place, it will be up to Southampton's negotiatiors to get the best agreement that they can, without resorting to a slanging match.
Battle plans are exactly what should be drawn up, there will not be a penny extra coming in to the country, just our purse being watered down and being spent in the north west.
If the owners of Liverpool Docks are a PRIVATE company, then they should not receive any monies from the public purse, other than what has been agreed, if they alter that agreement to the detriment of a PRIVATE company in another part of the country, just to steal business with an unfair advantage, then those monies should be paid back.
Make the PRIVATE investment and build up a viable business and challenge the status quo, not rely on Goverment handouts & European subsidy to gain an unfair advantage.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I think it stupid to talk in terms of 'Battle Plans.' In the current financial situation, the government will give Liverpool the go-ahead, because they will see it in terms of bringing money into the country, and whether it is Liverpool or Southampton, they will not be fussy. If negotiations take place, it will be up to Southampton's negotiatiors to get the best agreement that they can, without resorting to a slanging match.[/p][/quote]Battle plans are exactly what should be drawn up, there will not be a penny extra coming in to the country, just our purse being watered down and being spent in the north west. If the owners of Liverpool Docks are a PRIVATE company, then they should not receive any monies from the public purse, other than what has been agreed, if they alter that agreement to the detriment of a PRIVATE company in another part of the country, just to steal business with an unfair advantage, then those monies should be paid back. Make the PRIVATE investment and build up a viable business and challenge the status quo, not rely on Goverment handouts & European subsidy to gain an unfair advantage. SaintAsh1964
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Fri 5 Aug 11

southy says...

SaintAsh1964.
So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned.
That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.
SaintAsh1964. So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned. That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from. southy
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Fri 5 Aug 11

The S@1nt says...

Lobbying group in Southampton, the more people the better...What's the point? Remember the flouride debate Mr Smith??
Lobbying group in Southampton, the more people the better...What's the point? Remember the flouride debate Mr Smith?? The S@1nt
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Linesman says...

SaintAsh1964 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I think it stupid to talk in terms of 'Battle Plans.'

In the current financial situation, the government will give Liverpool the go-ahead, because they will see it in terms of bringing money into the country, and whether it is Liverpool or Southampton, they will not be fussy.

If negotiations take place, it will be up to Southampton's negotiatiors to get the best agreement that they can, without resorting to a slanging match.
Battle plans are exactly what should be drawn up, there will not be a penny extra coming in to the country, just our purse being watered down and being spent in the north west.
If the owners of Liverpool Docks are a PRIVATE company, then they should not receive any monies from the public purse, other than what has been agreed, if they alter that agreement to the detriment of a PRIVATE company in another part of the country, just to steal business with an unfair advantage, then those monies should be paid back.
Make the PRIVATE investment and build up a viable business and challenge the status quo, not rely on Goverment handouts & European subsidy to gain an unfair advantage.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

I am not saying whether it is right or not, I am just betting that, regardless of negotiations, Liverpool will be given the go-ahead.

With that in mind, I think conducting negotiations rather than forming battle plans, would result in a better deal and would be far less costly.

If Southampton City Council want to enter into a legal battle, it will cost a hell of a lot, and if they lose and are saddled with the costs of both parties, could they afford it?
[quote][p][bold]SaintAsh1964[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I think it stupid to talk in terms of 'Battle Plans.' In the current financial situation, the government will give Liverpool the go-ahead, because they will see it in terms of bringing money into the country, and whether it is Liverpool or Southampton, they will not be fussy. If negotiations take place, it will be up to Southampton's negotiatiors to get the best agreement that they can, without resorting to a slanging match.[/p][/quote]Battle plans are exactly what should be drawn up, there will not be a penny extra coming in to the country, just our purse being watered down and being spent in the north west. If the owners of Liverpool Docks are a PRIVATE company, then they should not receive any monies from the public purse, other than what has been agreed, if they alter that agreement to the detriment of a PRIVATE company in another part of the country, just to steal business with an unfair advantage, then those monies should be paid back. Make the PRIVATE investment and build up a viable business and challenge the status quo, not rely on Goverment handouts & European subsidy to gain an unfair advantage.[/p][/quote]You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. I am not saying whether it is right or not, I am just betting that, regardless of negotiations, Liverpool will be given the go-ahead. With that in mind, I think conducting negotiations rather than forming battle plans, would result in a better deal and would be far less costly. If Southampton City Council want to enter into a legal battle, it will cost a hell of a lot, and if they lose and are saddled with the costs of both parties, could they afford it? Linesman
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Fri 5 Aug 11

SaintAsh1964 says...

southy wrote:
SaintAsh1964.
So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned.
That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.
southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy.
If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company?
Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner.
Go lay down and have a think about it!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: SaintAsh1964. So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned. That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.[/p][/quote]southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy. If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company? Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner. Go lay down and have a think about it! SaintAsh1964
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Lone Ranger. says...

Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Fri 5 Aug 11

arizonan says...

Can we please have accuracy in the amounts quoted.
In the consultation documents from the DfT, it states that the total amount in grants, both UK and EU is 17.82m, not the 21m repeatedly quoted in this newspaper.
The EU grant is 8.62m, therefore, the UK slice is 9.2m.
As depreciation has taken place to the asset, the figure Liverpool City Council is paying back, 5.35m looks about right.So Liverpool is repaying the UK grant.
Now for the EU part. The restriction of trade imposed by the DfT, is just that, a DfT or UK restriction.
The EU did not impose any such restriction and I guess would not, or could not, have imposed such restriction to trade. So why do you now expect the EU to ask for its money back when the grant was given to promote employment and economic activity?.
I do not know of any EU grant having to be repaid, does anybody know of such?
The tone of the consultation papers from the DfT seem to me to indicate that all the financial matters have been dealt with. I suggest that everyone who is commenting here, should read them.
Can we please have accuracy in the amounts quoted. In the consultation documents from the DfT, it states that the total amount in grants, both UK and EU is 17.82m, not the 21m repeatedly quoted in this newspaper. The EU grant is 8.62m, therefore, the UK slice is 9.2m. As depreciation has taken place to the asset, the figure Liverpool City Council is paying back, 5.35m looks about right.So Liverpool is repaying the UK grant. Now for the EU part. The restriction of trade imposed by the DfT, is just that, a DfT or UK restriction. The EU did not impose any such restriction and I guess would not, or could not, have imposed such restriction to trade. So why do you now expect the EU to ask for its money back when the grant was given to promote employment and economic activity?. I do not know of any EU grant having to be repaid, does anybody know of such? The tone of the consultation papers from the DfT seem to me to indicate that all the financial matters have been dealt with. I suggest that everyone who is commenting here, should read them. arizonan
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general? Condor Man
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Pettle says...

Jesus. Even the headline is rediculous. This is all BS.
Jesus. Even the headline is rediculous. This is all BS. Pettle
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Fri 5 Aug 11

SOULJACKER says...

Oh hell,

What a load of rubbish......this is the Echo stirring up cr@p again!

So what about Liverpool, they are allowed to do the same sh1t as us.......for goodness sake, stop stirring it up man & do some real investigation for a change!
Oh hell, What a load of rubbish......this is the Echo stirring up cr@p again! So what about Liverpool, they are allowed to do the same sh1t as us.......for goodness sake, stop stirring it up man & do some real investigation for a change! SOULJACKER
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Fri 5 Aug 11

AlwynM says...

The cruise terminal at Liverpool is owned by Liverpool City Council, e.g. NOT privately owned. It is operated by Peel a private company on behalf of Liverpool CC.

http://nds.coi.gov.u
k/content/Detail.asp
x?ReleaseID=420291&N
ewsAreaID=2
The cruise terminal at Liverpool is owned by Liverpool City Council, e.g. NOT privately owned. It is operated by Peel a private company on behalf of Liverpool CC. http://nds.coi.gov.u k/content/Detail.asp x?ReleaseID=420291&N ewsAreaID=2 AlwynM
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Lone Ranger. says...

Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Fri 5 Aug 11

loosehead says...

SaintAsh1964 wrote:
southy wrote:
SaintAsh1964.
So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned.
That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.
southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy.
If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company?
Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner.
Go lay down and have a think about it!
Saintash I remember Millbrook point being reclaimed for a container port as far as I was aware the port was state owned under a Labour government at the time & Millions were being pumped into Liverpool.Have a look at industrial history & see how bad it was in Liverpool for strikes? Southy would quite happily see us all on the dole if his TUSC could get more votes.every thing this man says is anti Southampton yet he criticises people from out side investing in the city & buying the top end property's as I've said before he should call himself NORTHY.In Liverpool whole communities are being pulled apart by the council & the regeneration board areas that are happy & relatively crime free who just need their homes modernised are being evicted & their homes knocked down for plush expensive housing.this is the same council that is lying to the government & spending those peoples monies on the docks.
[quote][p][bold]SaintAsh1964[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: SaintAsh1964. So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned. That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.[/p][/quote]southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy. If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company? Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner. Go lay down and have a think about it![/p][/quote]Saintash I remember Millbrook point being reclaimed for a container port as far as I was aware the port was state owned under a Labour government at the time & Millions were being pumped into Liverpool.Have a look at industrial history & see how bad it was in Liverpool for strikes? Southy would quite happily see us all on the dole if his TUSC could get more votes.every thing this man says is anti Southampton yet he criticises people from out side investing in the city & buying the top end property's as I've said before he should call himself NORTHY.In Liverpool whole communities are being pulled apart by the council & the regeneration board areas that are happy & relatively crime free who just need their homes modernised are being evicted & their homes knocked down for plush expensive housing.this is the same council that is lying to the government & spending those peoples monies on the docks. loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Fri 5 Aug 11

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Funny that you calling people names? your beloved Denham was going to make companies pay for tax before the law was changed.he was going to back date it meaning they would have to pay double & many would have ceased trading putting people out of work.So please explkain to me what this man has done for this city? did he stop the Labour Government from diverting revenue away from this city to give to the North? NO he didn't.did he fight to keep Martini & BAT here? NO he didn't you don't have to agree with either product but they were both employing 1,500 to 2,000 altogether people on good pay.So come on besides opposing the war what the hell has he or his side kick Whitehead done for this city?Please don't do your left wing thing & throw insults at me just answer the Question
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Funny that you calling people names? your beloved Denham was going to make companies pay for tax before the law was changed.he was going to back date it meaning they would have to pay double & many would have ceased trading putting people out of work.So please explkain to me what this man has done for this city? did he stop the Labour Government from diverting revenue away from this city to give to the North? NO he didn't.did he fight to keep Martini & BAT here? NO he didn't you don't have to agree with either product but they were both employing 1,500 to 2,000 altogether people on good pay.So come on besides opposing the war what the hell has he or his side kick Whitehead done for this city?Please don't do your left wing thing & throw insults at me just answer the Question loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Funny that you calling people names? your beloved Denham was going to make companies pay for tax before the law was changed.he was going to back date it meaning they would have to pay double & many would have ceased trading putting people out of work.So please explkain to me what this man has done for this city? did he stop the Labour Government from diverting revenue away from this city to give to the North? NO he didn't.did he fight to keep Martini & BAT here? NO he didn't you don't have to agree with either product but they were both employing 1,500 to 2,000 altogether people on good pay.So come on besides opposing the war what the hell has he or his side kick Whitehead done for this city?Please don't do your left wing thing & throw insults at me just answer the Question
Oh dear have you been drinking again loosehead ??
.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Funny that you calling people names? your beloved Denham was going to make companies pay for tax before the law was changed.he was going to back date it meaning they would have to pay double & many would have ceased trading putting people out of work.So please explkain to me what this man has done for this city? did he stop the Labour Government from diverting revenue away from this city to give to the North? NO he didn't.did he fight to keep Martini & BAT here? NO he didn't you don't have to agree with either product but they were both employing 1,500 to 2,000 altogether people on good pay.So come on besides opposing the war what the hell has he or his side kick Whitehead done for this city?Please don't do your left wing thing & throw insults at me just answer the Question[/p][/quote]Oh dear have you been drinking again loosehead ?? . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea).

I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea). I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Fri 5 Aug 11

Linesman says...

Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea).

I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.
To be fair to Denham, he was elected to represent his constituents in Parliament. Councillors deal with the City's administration and the way that it is run.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea). I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.[/p][/quote]To be fair to Denham, he was elected to represent his constituents in Parliament. Councillors deal with the City's administration and the way that it is run. Linesman
  • Score: 0

7:54am Sat 6 Aug 11

SpittingMoreFire says...

Ahoy there ECHO!!

I wonder, might this be directed at you?

http://www.liverpool
dailypost.co.uk/ldpb
usiness/business-loc
al/2011/08/05/opinio
n-are-you-inadverten
tly-breaching-copyri
ght-92534-29180424/

.
...seems a coincidence, eh!

Watching these two papers battle it out is brilliant.

A couple of years ago the Southern Daily Echo was praised for maintaining its decorum on this ongoing story in the face of the mud being slung by the Liverpool Daily Post.

But oh! How the tables have turned: Mark Thomas and his minions have the upper hand now this new bid has been submitted. His paper's run a good campaign too. Shame the Echo didn't think to do the same but rather spent its time on its “give us a Spitfire” campaign: end result of which was to get strung up...

...on a washing line...

by the BBC:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=NbJOufYMd
Lc

I actually thought Thursday’s cut 'n' paste “View from the North” by the Echo was legendary... why? In part because of what I perceived to be a hint that Liverpool's council leader is much more open to talk through difficult situations than Southampton's leader.

That's right, “Joe 'Affable' Anderson” will give people the time of day - including his workforce no doubt - unlike reckless Rambo Royston!

Because the Daily Post knows if Affable Anderson wishes to meet Rambo Royston and have a chat, he'll have to talk through an intermediary.

And because of Rambo Royston's reluctance to talk, Affable Anderson will be left waiting until Rambo Royston has finished messing about trying to delay the date of this said meeting – to the frustration of many indeed.

I look forward to seeing where you take this next, Echo.

But remember:“Don't be a copyright thief.” (!)
(although I thought it was genius myself!)
[bold] Ahoy there ECHO!![/bold] I wonder, might this be directed at you? http://www.liverpool dailypost.co.uk/ldpb usiness/business-loc al/2011/08/05/opinio n-are-you-inadverten tly-breaching-copyri ght-92534-29180424/ . ...seems a coincidence, eh! Watching these two papers battle it out is brilliant. A couple of years ago the Southern Daily Echo was praised for maintaining its decorum on this ongoing story in the face of the mud being slung by the Liverpool Daily Post. But oh! How the tables have turned: Mark Thomas and his minions have the upper hand now this new bid has been submitted. His paper's run a good campaign too. Shame the Echo didn't think to do the same but rather spent its time on its “give us a Spitfire” campaign: end result of which was to get strung up... ...on a washing line... by the BBC: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=NbJOufYMd Lc I actually thought Thursday’s cut 'n' paste “View from the North” by the Echo was legendary... why? In part because of what I perceived to be a hint that Liverpool's council leader is much more open to talk through difficult situations than Southampton's leader. That's right, “Joe 'Affable' Anderson” will give people the time of day - including his workforce no doubt - unlike reckless Rambo Royston! Because the Daily Post knows if Affable Anderson wishes to meet Rambo Royston and have a chat, he'll have to talk through an intermediary. And because of Rambo Royston's reluctance to talk, Affable Anderson will be left waiting until Rambo Royston has finished messing about trying to delay the date of this said meeting – to the frustration of many indeed. I look forward to seeing where you take this next, Echo. But remember:[bold]“Don't be a copyright thief.” [/bold] (!) (although I thought it was genius myself!) SpittingMoreFire
  • Score: 0

8:05am Sat 6 Aug 11

SpittingMoreFire says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
Oh hell,

What a load of rubbish......this is the Echo stirring up cr@p again!

So what about Liverpool, they are allowed to do the same sh1t as us.......for goodness sake, stop stirring it up man & do some real investigation for a change!
“CALM DOWN, CALM DOWN!” To quote Echo's headlining news story on Thursday.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=STIvNjWob
zA
.
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: Oh hell, What a load of rubbish......this is the Echo stirring up cr@p again! So what about Liverpool, they are allowed to do the same sh1t as us.......for goodness sake, stop stirring it up man & do some real investigation for a change![/p][/quote]“CALM DOWN, CALM DOWN!” To quote Echo's headlining news story on Thursday. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=STIvNjWob zA . SpittingMoreFire
  • Score: 0

9:02am Sat 6 Aug 11

Lone Ranger. says...

Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea).

I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.
Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it.
.
I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for.
.
I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it.
.
Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private.
.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea). I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.[/p][/quote]Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it. . I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for. . I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it. . Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private. . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

9:15am Sat 6 Aug 11

southy says...

SaintAsh1964 wrote:
southy wrote:
SaintAsh1964.
So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned.
That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.
southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy.
If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company?
Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner.
Go lay down and have a think about it!
There was no real agreement at the time, the land that they was given, boarded with other state owned land, apart from 4 plots of land, whitch was privately owned, the owers never recieved a penny.
The yacht got what they wanted, but did not own any land they rented 1 plot from one of the 4 owners, and land from the Council, they moved over to woolston. The 4 owners was promise Redbridge Point (North Side) as was the 13th Sea Scouts in a straight swap, It never happened, The road that ABP was meant to build never got built fully to allow excess to Redbridge Point, They made Tidal Bank steep and rocky and left it like that, making it unexcessable, The top land was never lowered and flatten. ABP now owes those 4 plot land owners Billions because the land that they owed had rights down to the water mark. So don't you think ABJ should pay up.
You need to learn more about what went on in the past, time you went down lay and ponder over it.

Loosehead your wrong Liverpool docks was never part of the state owned Dockboard, Liverpool was privately owned and no money was given to Liverpool back in those days, they was left to defend for them selfs, When the ABP Docks was sold by the Thatcher Government it was sold well under the market value, It was sold at a lost to the state and as a job lot.
At the normal BS again, to about the TUSC, They will not put people on the dole that only happens under your loved Right Wing whitch is well known as the High Employment group, The TUSC are more likely create millions of jobs not lose them. You just don't want to see state owned Industries again because the private sector can not compet with the public sector.
[quote][p][bold]SaintAsh1964[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: SaintAsh1964. So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned. That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.[/p][/quote]southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy. If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company? Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner. Go lay down and have a think about it![/p][/quote]There was no real agreement at the time, the land that they was given, boarded with other state owned land, apart from 4 plots of land, whitch was privately owned, the owers never recieved a penny. The yacht got what they wanted, but did not own any land they rented 1 plot from one of the 4 owners, and land from the Council, they moved over to woolston. The 4 owners was promise Redbridge Point (North Side) as was the 13th Sea Scouts in a straight swap, It never happened, The road that ABP was meant to build never got built fully to allow excess to Redbridge Point, They made Tidal Bank steep and rocky and left it like that, making it unexcessable, The top land was never lowered and flatten. ABP now owes those 4 plot land owners Billions because the land that they owed had rights down to the water mark. So don't you think ABJ should pay up. You need to learn more about what went on in the past, time you went down lay and ponder over it. Loosehead your wrong Liverpool docks was never part of the state owned Dockboard, Liverpool was privately owned and no money was given to Liverpool back in those days, they was left to defend for them selfs, When the ABP Docks was sold by the Thatcher Government it was sold well under the market value, It was sold at a lost to the state and as a job lot. At the normal BS again, to about the TUSC, They will not put people on the dole that only happens under your loved Right Wing whitch is well known as the High Employment group, The TUSC are more likely create millions of jobs not lose them. You just don't want to see state owned Industries again because the private sector can not compet with the public sector. southy
  • Score: 0

9:25am Sat 6 Aug 11

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Funny that you calling people names? your beloved Denham was going to make companies pay for tax before the law was changed.he was going to back date it meaning they would have to pay double & many would have ceased trading putting people out of work.So please explkain to me what this man has done for this city? did he stop the Labour Government from diverting revenue away from this city to give to the North? NO he didn't.did he fight to keep Martini & BAT here? NO he didn't you don't have to agree with either product but they were both employing 1,500 to 2,000 altogether people on good pay.So come on besides opposing the war what the hell has he or his side kick Whitehead done for this city?Please don't do your left wing thing & throw insults at me just answer the Question
Oh dear have you been drinking again loosehead ??
.
Here we go again .you are a total idiot I haven't been drinking I actually was asking you to tell us exactly what Denham & Whitehead have done for this city? But this is All you can come up with? Typical of you & your left wing buddies
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Funny that you calling people names? your beloved Denham was going to make companies pay for tax before the law was changed.he was going to back date it meaning they would have to pay double & many would have ceased trading putting people out of work.So please explkain to me what this man has done for this city? did he stop the Labour Government from diverting revenue away from this city to give to the North? NO he didn't.did he fight to keep Martini & BAT here? NO he didn't you don't have to agree with either product but they were both employing 1,500 to 2,000 altogether people on good pay.So come on besides opposing the war what the hell has he or his side kick Whitehead done for this city?Please don't do your left wing thing & throw insults at me just answer the Question[/p][/quote]Oh dear have you been drinking again loosehead ?? .[/p][/quote]Here we go again .you are a total idiot I haven't been drinking I actually was asking you to tell us exactly what Denham & Whitehead have done for this city? But this is All you can come up with? Typical of you & your left wing buddies loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:26am Sat 6 Aug 11

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
SaintAsh1964 wrote:
southy wrote:
SaintAsh1964.
So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned.
That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.
southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy.
If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company?
Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner.
Go lay down and have a think about it!
There was no real agreement at the time, the land that they was given, boarded with other state owned land, apart from 4 plots of land, whitch was privately owned, the owers never recieved a penny.
The yacht got what they wanted, but did not own any land they rented 1 plot from one of the 4 owners, and land from the Council, they moved over to woolston. The 4 owners was promise Redbridge Point (North Side) as was the 13th Sea Scouts in a straight swap, It never happened, The road that ABP was meant to build never got built fully to allow excess to Redbridge Point, They made Tidal Bank steep and rocky and left it like that, making it unexcessable, The top land was never lowered and flatten. ABP now owes those 4 plot land owners Billions because the land that they owed had rights down to the water mark. So don't you think ABJ should pay up.
You need to learn more about what went on in the past, time you went down lay and ponder over it.

Loosehead your wrong Liverpool docks was never part of the state owned Dockboard, Liverpool was privately owned and no money was given to Liverpool back in those days, they was left to defend for them selfs, When the ABP Docks was sold by the Thatcher Government it was sold well under the market value, It was sold at a lost to the state and as a job lot.
At the normal BS again, to about the TUSC, They will not put people on the dole that only happens under your loved Right Wing whitch is well known as the High Employment group, The TUSC are more likely create millions of jobs not lose them. You just don't want to see state owned Industries again because the private sector can not compet with the public sector.
SOUTHY read it again! I think you'll find out I said that Southampton was state owned
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SaintAsh1964[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: SaintAsh1964. So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned. That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.[/p][/quote]southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy. If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company? Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner. Go lay down and have a think about it![/p][/quote]There was no real agreement at the time, the land that they was given, boarded with other state owned land, apart from 4 plots of land, whitch was privately owned, the owers never recieved a penny. The yacht got what they wanted, but did not own any land they rented 1 plot from one of the 4 owners, and land from the Council, they moved over to woolston. The 4 owners was promise Redbridge Point (North Side) as was the 13th Sea Scouts in a straight swap, It never happened, The road that ABP was meant to build never got built fully to allow excess to Redbridge Point, They made Tidal Bank steep and rocky and left it like that, making it unexcessable, The top land was never lowered and flatten. ABP now owes those 4 plot land owners Billions because the land that they owed had rights down to the water mark. So don't you think ABJ should pay up. You need to learn more about what went on in the past, time you went down lay and ponder over it. Loosehead your wrong Liverpool docks was never part of the state owned Dockboard, Liverpool was privately owned and no money was given to Liverpool back in those days, they was left to defend for them selfs, When the ABP Docks was sold by the Thatcher Government it was sold well under the market value, It was sold at a lost to the state and as a job lot. At the normal BS again, to about the TUSC, They will not put people on the dole that only happens under your loved Right Wing whitch is well known as the High Employment group, The TUSC are more likely create millions of jobs not lose them. You just don't want to see state owned Industries again because the private sector can not compet with the public sector.[/p][/quote]SOUTHY read it again! I think you'll find out I said that Southampton was state owned loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:26am Sat 6 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea).

I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.
Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it.
.
I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for.
.
I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it.
.
Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private.
.
well, at least your honest. You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MP's have made life in Southampton better for local residents above and beyond what their party did in government? Wealth creation is low in the city and is preventing future developments. If we lose business to Liverpool its a kick in the teeth for local people. Why? because our success has come from the hard work of firms like ABP and Carnival who have invested millions into the area. All Liverpool has done is taken a huge amount of public cash and reneged on an agreement. As a business man you would surely resent working hard to develop a business only for a rival to be given everything on a plate and then want a slice of your cake too.

As for 2015, Smith showed Denham that there was only a fag paper between them. If Cameron has any sense he'll parachute in a top candidate, someone in the vain of Louise Bagshaw, who has both the oratory skills and appeal to get Labour out of this city again.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea). I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.[/p][/quote]Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it. . I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for. . I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it. . Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private. .[/p][/quote]well, at least your honest. You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MP's have made life in Southampton better for local residents above and beyond what their party did in government? Wealth creation is low in the city and is preventing future developments. If we lose business to Liverpool its a kick in the teeth for local people. Why? because our success has come from the hard work of firms like ABP and Carnival who have invested millions into the area. All Liverpool has done is taken a huge amount of public cash and reneged on an agreement. As a business man you would surely resent working hard to develop a business only for a rival to be given everything on a plate and then want a slice of your cake too. As for 2015, Smith showed Denham that there was only a fag paper between them. If Cameron has any sense he'll parachute in a top candidate, someone in the vain of Louise Bagshaw, who has both the oratory skills and appeal to get Labour out of this city again. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

10:38am Sat 6 Aug 11

OSPREYSAINT says...

SaintAsh1964 wrote:
southy wrote:
SaintAsh1964.
So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned.
That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.
southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy.
If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company?
Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner.
Go lay down and have a think about it!
SaintAsh I agree with you, not one of Southys better posts was it. I am sure that history will show the truth about ABP, whatever happened it was not to the detriment of the City was it? If we keep tying peoples hands behind their back when they are trying to create jobs and prosperity, it cannot be good for our local economy. Post war the Docks were massive, rambling and totally inefficient, ABP was presumably created to make sense of it especially with the onset of containerisation which has completely changed the face of sea cargo. However there have also been massive changes on the Passenger side of it too, Trans-Atlantic and other Continental travel has totally been eclipsed by air travel but Sea Cruising has taken its place, and still needs the best Passenger handling facilities which presumably is what ABP is trying to do and Southampton is an ideal place to do it. There must be room for other Ports to take some of the work, it should not be a monopoly, but then again the financing should be on a level playing field, which I think is the major issue here. I am disappointed in the response from our main MP's.
[quote][p][bold]SaintAsh1964[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: SaintAsh1964. So should ABP pay back all the money and land that they had when they was a state owned. That Container port here in Southampton, never cost them a penny in the water frontage land to reclaim from.[/p][/quote]southy, what ever agreement ABP had with the then Goverment regarding land, excisting companies, agreements on infrastructure, and development is totally irreverent, Goverment & European monies have been paid to a PRIVATE company on the basis of an agreement not to use the port in a particular way, they now want to change that agreement but also keep the subsidy. If they want to change things, why should they have an unfair advantage over another PRIVATELY owned company? Get private investment in and do things in a business like manner. Go lay down and have a think about it![/p][/quote]SaintAsh I agree with you, not one of Southys better posts was it. I am sure that history will show the truth about ABP, whatever happened it was not to the detriment of the City was it? If we keep tying peoples hands behind their back when they are trying to create jobs and prosperity, it cannot be good for our local economy. Post war the Docks were massive, rambling and totally inefficient, ABP was presumably created to make sense of it especially with the onset of containerisation which has completely changed the face of sea cargo. However there have also been massive changes on the Passenger side of it too, Trans-Atlantic and other Continental travel has totally been eclipsed by air travel but Sea Cruising has taken its place, and still needs the best Passenger handling facilities which presumably is what ABP is trying to do and Southampton is an ideal place to do it. There must be room for other Ports to take some of the work, it should not be a monopoly, but then again the financing should be on a level playing field, which I think is the major issue here. I am disappointed in the response from our main MP's. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

10:42am Sat 6 Aug 11

OSPREYSAINT says...

As far as decent MP's are concerned we had a good one in the Romsey constituency who was kicked out and replaced by a (imo) rather dubious Tory candidate, serves you right if you are not getting value for money.
As far as decent MP's are concerned we had a good one in the Romsey constituency who was kicked out and replaced by a (imo) rather dubious Tory candidate, serves you right if you are not getting value for money. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

10:45am Sat 6 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
As far as decent MP's are concerned we had a good one in the Romsey constituency who was kicked out and replaced by a (imo) rather dubious Tory candidate, serves you right if you are not getting value for money.
what, Gidley? you're having a laugh. She never recovered politically after her criticism of the police in the Chandler's Ford shooting incident.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: As far as decent MP's are concerned we had a good one in the Romsey constituency who was kicked out and replaced by a (imo) rather dubious Tory candidate, serves you right if you are not getting value for money.[/p][/quote]what, Gidley? you're having a laugh. She never recovered politically after her criticism of the police in the Chandler's Ford shooting incident. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

10:52am Sat 6 Aug 11

OSPREYSAINT says...

Condor Man wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
As far as decent MP's are concerned we had a good one in the Romsey constituency who was kicked out and replaced by a (imo) rather dubious Tory candidate, serves you right if you are not getting value for money.
what, Gidley? you're having a laugh. She never recovered politically after her criticism of the police in the Chandler's Ford shooting incident.
No one is perfect, but in my experience she was an excellent Constituent MP, probably too honest to be a proper MP.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: As far as decent MP's are concerned we had a good one in the Romsey constituency who was kicked out and replaced by a (imo) rather dubious Tory candidate, serves you right if you are not getting value for money.[/p][/quote]what, Gidley? you're having a laugh. She never recovered politically after her criticism of the police in the Chandler's Ford shooting incident.[/p][/quote]No one is perfect, but in my experience she was an excellent Constituent MP, probably too honest to be a proper MP. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:24am Sat 6 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
As far as decent MP's are concerned we had a good one in the Romsey constituency who was kicked out and replaced by a (imo) rather dubious Tory candidate, serves you right if you are not getting value for money.
what, Gidley? you're having a laugh. She never recovered politically after her criticism of the police in the Chandler's Ford shooting incident.
No one is perfect, but in my experience she was an excellent Constituent MP, probably too honest to be a proper MP.
you're probably right. There seems to be a political class developing in the UK which seems totally devoid of the reality most people live in. We'll never again see a PM who grew up in council house- like James Callaghan or one that who didn't go to university- like John Major. In my life time only Heath, Callaghan and Major were 'people like me'. None of today's political leaders I can relate to.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: As far as decent MP's are concerned we had a good one in the Romsey constituency who was kicked out and replaced by a (imo) rather dubious Tory candidate, serves you right if you are not getting value for money.[/p][/quote]what, Gidley? you're having a laugh. She never recovered politically after her criticism of the police in the Chandler's Ford shooting incident.[/p][/quote]No one is perfect, but in my experience she was an excellent Constituent MP, probably too honest to be a proper MP.[/p][/quote]you're probably right. There seems to be a political class developing in the UK which seems totally devoid of the reality most people live in. We'll never again see a PM who grew up in council house- like James Callaghan or one that who didn't go to university- like John Major. In my life time only Heath, Callaghan and Major were 'people like me'. None of today's political leaders I can relate to. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Sat 6 Aug 11

Linesman says...

Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea).

I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.
Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it.
.
I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for.
.
I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it.
.
Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private.
.
well, at least your honest. You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MP's have made life in Southampton better for local residents above and beyond what their party did in government? Wealth creation is low in the city and is preventing future developments. If we lose business to Liverpool its a kick in the teeth for local people. Why? because our success has come from the hard work of firms like ABP and Carnival who have invested millions into the area. All Liverpool has done is taken a huge amount of public cash and reneged on an agreement. As a business man you would surely resent working hard to develop a business only for a rival to be given everything on a plate and then want a slice of your cake too.

As for 2015, Smith showed Denham that there was only a fag paper between them. If Cameron has any sense he'll parachute in a top candidate, someone in the vain of Louise Bagshaw, who has both the oratory skills and appeal to get Labour out of this city again.
Condor Man. You say, 'You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MPs have made life in Southampton better for local residents ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEIR PARTY DID IN GOVERNMENT.'
MP's, by the nature of their responsibility and where they work, are not involved in the running of the City of Southampton, that is the role of the City Council, and that is NOT run by Labour Councillors. City Councillors are responsible for housing, planning, social care, street lighting etc. Denham and Whitehead have worked hard, but not hit the headlines in Parliament, unlike their Tory counterpart, 'Nookey' Noakes!
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea). I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.[/p][/quote]Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it. . I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for. . I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it. . Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private. .[/p][/quote]well, at least your honest. You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MP's have made life in Southampton better for local residents above and beyond what their party did in government? Wealth creation is low in the city and is preventing future developments. If we lose business to Liverpool its a kick in the teeth for local people. Why? because our success has come from the hard work of firms like ABP and Carnival who have invested millions into the area. All Liverpool has done is taken a huge amount of public cash and reneged on an agreement. As a business man you would surely resent working hard to develop a business only for a rival to be given everything on a plate and then want a slice of your cake too. As for 2015, Smith showed Denham that there was only a fag paper between them. If Cameron has any sense he'll parachute in a top candidate, someone in the vain of Louise Bagshaw, who has both the oratory skills and appeal to get Labour out of this city again.[/p][/quote]Condor Man. You say, 'You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MPs have made life in Southampton better for local residents ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEIR PARTY DID IN GOVERNMENT.' MP's, by the nature of their responsibility and where they work, are not involved in the running of the City of Southampton, that is the role of the City Council, and that is NOT run by Labour Councillors. City Councillors are responsible for housing, planning, social care, street lighting etc. Denham and Whitehead have worked hard, but not hit the headlines in Parliament, unlike their Tory counterpart, 'Nookey' Noakes! Linesman
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Sat 6 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.
Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Sat 6 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.
Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Sat 6 Aug 11

Linesman says...

Condor Man wrote:
Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.
Agreed, but Southampton has always been a tough, rough, working-class, docks town, and Fareham has always been more of a dormatory town. Not much in the way of Industry here.

What you tend to either forget or ignore is that Central government make grants to Councils, and the Councils decide how that money is spent.
For example, Southampton would get considerably more for schools/education than Fareham, and Southampton City Council, not its Members of Parliament, would decide how and where the money is spent.

Southampton's schools would, I imagine, be older than those in Fareham, and would probably require more spent on maintenance, but if (R) if a council delays maintenance, to save a few bob in a financial year, that maintenance will cost considerably more in the following year.

You mention follies of the previous government. I have no doubt that all governments have made mistakes. As I look at the proposed gas and electricity price hikes, I consider that it was Thatcher's folly to sell them, and North Sea Oil off so that we now, not only find ourselves at the mercy of foreign owners, but we have nothing to show for the money that the the Tory government of the time collected.

I could, of course, be wrong, and you could tell me how Southampton benefitted by the money the Tories raised by selling off British Aerospace, Cable&Wireless, BNOC, BT, British Gas, British Airways, British Steel and the Water Utilities?
Personally, I can think of none, but I do recall that we lost a hell of a lot on 16 September, 1992 as a result of Black Wednesday - hardly at Tory financial triumph!
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Agreed, but Southampton has always been a tough, rough, working-class, docks town, and Fareham has always been more of a dormatory town. Not much in the way of Industry here. What you tend to either forget or ignore is that Central government make grants to Councils, and the Councils decide how that money is spent. For example, Southampton would get considerably more for schools/education than Fareham, and Southampton City Council, not its Members of Parliament, would decide how and where the money is spent. Southampton's schools would, I imagine, be older than those in Fareham, and would probably require more spent on maintenance, but if (R) if a council delays maintenance, to save a few bob in a financial year, that maintenance will cost considerably more in the following year. You mention follies of the previous government. I have no doubt that all governments have made mistakes. As I look at the proposed gas and electricity price hikes, I consider that it was Thatcher's folly to sell them, and North Sea Oil off so that we now, not only find ourselves at the mercy of foreign owners, but we have nothing to show for the money that the the Tory government of the time collected. I could, of course, be wrong, and you could tell me how Southampton benefitted by the money the Tories raised by selling off British Aerospace, Cable&Wireless, BNOC, BT, British Gas, British Airways, British Steel and the Water Utilities? Personally, I can think of none, but I do recall that we lost a hell of a lot on 16 September, 1992 as a result of Black Wednesday - hardly at Tory financial triumph! Linesman
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Sat 6 Aug 11

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea).

I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.
Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it.
.
I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for.
.
I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it.
.
Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private.
.
well, at least your honest. You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MP's have made life in Southampton better for local residents above and beyond what their party did in government? Wealth creation is low in the city and is preventing future developments. If we lose business to Liverpool its a kick in the teeth for local people. Why? because our success has come from the hard work of firms like ABP and Carnival who have invested millions into the area. All Liverpool has done is taken a huge amount of public cash and reneged on an agreement. As a business man you would surely resent working hard to develop a business only for a rival to be given everything on a plate and then want a slice of your cake too.

As for 2015, Smith showed Denham that there was only a fag paper between them. If Cameron has any sense he'll parachute in a top candidate, someone in the vain of Louise Bagshaw, who has both the oratory skills and appeal to get Labour out of this city again.
Condor Man. You say, 'You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MPs have made life in Southampton better for local residents ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEIR PARTY DID IN GOVERNMENT.'
MP's, by the nature of their responsibility and where they work, are not involved in the running of the City of Southampton, that is the role of the City Council, and that is NOT run by Labour Councillors. City Councillors are responsible for housing, planning, social care, street lighting etc. Denham and Whitehead have worked hard, but not hit the headlines in Parliament, unlike their Tory counterpart, 'Nookey' Noakes!
So why not fight to keep the money that Labour took to give to the north from Southampton & the other Southern cities or didn't they feel that was what they were elected for? Come on your good at having a go at people asking them if they've been drinking? so you say Denham's a good M.P? so show us why he's been good for us his electorate? While your at it show us what Whitehead's done to help & benefit this city? They are elected by the people of this city to get the best deal for this city.Labour Governments have time & time again looked after the North at the South's detriment so don't tell me they are there to follow the party line they're not they're there to represent us
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea). I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.[/p][/quote]Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it. . I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for. . I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it. . Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private. .[/p][/quote]well, at least your honest. You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MP's have made life in Southampton better for local residents above and beyond what their party did in government? Wealth creation is low in the city and is preventing future developments. If we lose business to Liverpool its a kick in the teeth for local people. Why? because our success has come from the hard work of firms like ABP and Carnival who have invested millions into the area. All Liverpool has done is taken a huge amount of public cash and reneged on an agreement. As a business man you would surely resent working hard to develop a business only for a rival to be given everything on a plate and then want a slice of your cake too. As for 2015, Smith showed Denham that there was only a fag paper between them. If Cameron has any sense he'll parachute in a top candidate, someone in the vain of Louise Bagshaw, who has both the oratory skills and appeal to get Labour out of this city again.[/p][/quote]Condor Man. You say, 'You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MPs have made life in Southampton better for local residents ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEIR PARTY DID IN GOVERNMENT.' MP's, by the nature of their responsibility and where they work, are not involved in the running of the City of Southampton, that is the role of the City Council, and that is NOT run by Labour Councillors. City Councillors are responsible for housing, planning, social care, street lighting etc. Denham and Whitehead have worked hard, but not hit the headlines in Parliament, unlike their Tory counterpart, 'Nookey' Noakes![/p][/quote]So why not fight to keep the money that Labour took to give to the north from Southampton & the other Southern cities or didn't they feel that was what they were elected for? Come on your good at having a go at people asking them if they've been drinking? so you say Denham's a good M.P? so show us why he's been good for us his electorate? While your at it show us what Whitehead's done to help & benefit this city? They are elected by the people of this city to get the best deal for this city.Labour Governments have time & time again looked after the North at the South's detriment so don't tell me they are there to follow the party line they're not they're there to represent us loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Sat 6 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

Linesman wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.
Agreed, but Southampton has always been a tough, rough, working-class, docks town, and Fareham has always been more of a dormatory town. Not much in the way of Industry here.

What you tend to either forget or ignore is that Central government make grants to Councils, and the Councils decide how that money is spent.
For example, Southampton would get considerably more for schools/education than Fareham, and Southampton City Council, not its Members of Parliament, would decide how and where the money is spent.

Southampton's schools would, I imagine, be older than those in Fareham, and would probably require more spent on maintenance, but if (R) if a council delays maintenance, to save a few bob in a financial year, that maintenance will cost considerably more in the following year.

You mention follies of the previous government. I have no doubt that all governments have made mistakes. As I look at the proposed gas and electricity price hikes, I consider that it was Thatcher's folly to sell them, and North Sea Oil off so that we now, not only find ourselves at the mercy of foreign owners, but we have nothing to show for the money that the the Tory government of the time collected.

I could, of course, be wrong, and you could tell me how Southampton benefitted by the money the Tories raised by selling off British Aerospace, Cable&Wireless, BNOC, BT, British Gas, British Airways, British Steel and the Water Utilities?
Personally, I can think of none, but I do recall that we lost a hell of a lot on 16 September, 1992 as a result of Black Wednesday - hardly at Tory financial triumph!
Privatisation was needed to allow firms like British Gas and Telecom to get the investment they needed to develop. Pre 1980's profit making state services were subsidising the loss making steel, coal and shipbuilding industries. You could argue that was a good thing but ultimately it held us back economically as the money wasn't being reinvested where it was needed- hence why it took 3 months to get a phone connected.

Black Wednesday was caused by the £ being kept at an artificially high level to what was now the euro. Currency speculation lead by George Soros caused the collapse.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Agreed, but Southampton has always been a tough, rough, working-class, docks town, and Fareham has always been more of a dormatory town. Not much in the way of Industry here. What you tend to either forget or ignore is that Central government make grants to Councils, and the Councils decide how that money is spent. For example, Southampton would get considerably more for schools/education than Fareham, and Southampton City Council, not its Members of Parliament, would decide how and where the money is spent. Southampton's schools would, I imagine, be older than those in Fareham, and would probably require more spent on maintenance, but if (R) if a council delays maintenance, to save a few bob in a financial year, that maintenance will cost considerably more in the following year. You mention follies of the previous government. I have no doubt that all governments have made mistakes. As I look at the proposed gas and electricity price hikes, I consider that it was Thatcher's folly to sell them, and North Sea Oil off so that we now, not only find ourselves at the mercy of foreign owners, but we have nothing to show for the money that the the Tory government of the time collected. I could, of course, be wrong, and you could tell me how Southampton benefitted by the money the Tories raised by selling off British Aerospace, Cable&Wireless, BNOC, BT, British Gas, British Airways, British Steel and the Water Utilities? Personally, I can think of none, but I do recall that we lost a hell of a lot on 16 September, 1992 as a result of Black Wednesday - hardly at Tory financial triumph![/p][/quote]Privatisation was needed to allow firms like British Gas and Telecom to get the investment they needed to develop. Pre 1980's profit making state services were subsidising the loss making steel, coal and shipbuilding industries. You could argue that was a good thing but ultimately it held us back economically as the money wasn't being reinvested where it was needed- hence why it took 3 months to get a phone connected. Black Wednesday was caused by the £ being kept at an artificially high level to what was now the euro. Currency speculation lead by George Soros caused the collapse. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Sat 6 Aug 11

Linesman says...

Condor Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.
Agreed, but Southampton has always been a tough, rough, working-class, docks town, and Fareham has always been more of a dormatory town. Not much in the way of Industry here.

What you tend to either forget or ignore is that Central government make grants to Councils, and the Councils decide how that money is spent.
For example, Southampton would get considerably more for schools/education than Fareham, and Southampton City Council, not its Members of Parliament, would decide how and where the money is spent.

Southampton's schools would, I imagine, be older than those in Fareham, and would probably require more spent on maintenance, but if (R) if a council delays maintenance, to save a few bob in a financial year, that maintenance will cost considerably more in the following year.

You mention follies of the previous government. I have no doubt that all governments have made mistakes. As I look at the proposed gas and electricity price hikes, I consider that it was Thatcher's folly to sell them, and North Sea Oil off so that we now, not only find ourselves at the mercy of foreign owners, but we have nothing to show for the money that the the Tory government of the time collected.

I could, of course, be wrong, and you could tell me how Southampton benefitted by the money the Tories raised by selling off British Aerospace, Cable&Wireless, BNOC, BT, British Gas, British Airways, British Steel and the Water Utilities?
Personally, I can think of none, but I do recall that we lost a hell of a lot on 16 September, 1992 as a result of Black Wednesday - hardly at Tory financial triumph!
Privatisation was needed to allow firms like British Gas and Telecom to get the investment they needed to develop. Pre 1980's profit making state services were subsidising the loss making steel, coal and shipbuilding industries. You could argue that was a good thing but ultimately it held us back economically as the money wasn't being reinvested where it was needed- hence why it took 3 months to get a phone connected.

Black Wednesday was caused by the £ being kept at an artificially high level to what was now the euro. Currency speculation lead by George Soros caused the collapse.
The question I asked was, could you tell me how Southampton benefitted from all of the money that the Thatcher Government raised by selling off those nationalised industries, and your response appeared to ignore it.

I am well aware of Black Wednesday and the Maestrict fiasco.

The sell-off of British Coal and British Rail came after that Triumph.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Agreed, but Southampton has always been a tough, rough, working-class, docks town, and Fareham has always been more of a dormatory town. Not much in the way of Industry here. What you tend to either forget or ignore is that Central government make grants to Councils, and the Councils decide how that money is spent. For example, Southampton would get considerably more for schools/education than Fareham, and Southampton City Council, not its Members of Parliament, would decide how and where the money is spent. Southampton's schools would, I imagine, be older than those in Fareham, and would probably require more spent on maintenance, but if (R) if a council delays maintenance, to save a few bob in a financial year, that maintenance will cost considerably more in the following year. You mention follies of the previous government. I have no doubt that all governments have made mistakes. As I look at the proposed gas and electricity price hikes, I consider that it was Thatcher's folly to sell them, and North Sea Oil off so that we now, not only find ourselves at the mercy of foreign owners, but we have nothing to show for the money that the the Tory government of the time collected. I could, of course, be wrong, and you could tell me how Southampton benefitted by the money the Tories raised by selling off British Aerospace, Cable&Wireless, BNOC, BT, British Gas, British Airways, British Steel and the Water Utilities? Personally, I can think of none, but I do recall that we lost a hell of a lot on 16 September, 1992 as a result of Black Wednesday - hardly at Tory financial triumph![/p][/quote]Privatisation was needed to allow firms like British Gas and Telecom to get the investment they needed to develop. Pre 1980's profit making state services were subsidising the loss making steel, coal and shipbuilding industries. You could argue that was a good thing but ultimately it held us back economically as the money wasn't being reinvested where it was needed- hence why it took 3 months to get a phone connected. Black Wednesday was caused by the £ being kept at an artificially high level to what was now the euro. Currency speculation lead by George Soros caused the collapse.[/p][/quote]The question I asked was, could you tell me how Southampton benefitted from all of the money that the Thatcher Government raised by selling off those nationalised industries, and your response appeared to ignore it. I am well aware of Black Wednesday and the Maestrict fiasco. The sell-off of British Coal and British Rail came after that Triumph. Linesman
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Sat 6 Aug 11

Condor Man says...

Linesman, my mum benefited as a BG employee by getting the free shares which helped pay the mortgage off. As for everyone else you'll remember that people benefited when income tax came down in the 80's, more money in the pockets gave more people the chance of home ownership (most people in Southampton are owner occupiers) which in turn has lead to people aged 45+ being set for life after paying off the mortgage. Sadly people under 30 will never have it so good.
Linesman, my mum benefited as a BG employee by getting the free shares which helped pay the mortgage off. As for everyone else you'll remember that people benefited when income tax came down in the 80's, more money in the pockets gave more people the chance of home ownership (most people in Southampton are owner occupiers) which in turn has lead to people aged 45+ being set for life after paying off the mortgage. Sadly people under 30 will never have it so good. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Sat 6 Aug 11

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees
What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?
Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you.
.
Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy.
.
You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers.
.
If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!.
.
Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together.
.
Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what.
.
I hope that has answered your question.
.
I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !!
.
Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea).

I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.
Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it.
.
I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for.
.
I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it.
.
Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private.
.
well, at least your honest. You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MP's have made life in Southampton better for local residents above and beyond what their party did in government? Wealth creation is low in the city and is preventing future developments. If we lose business to Liverpool its a kick in the teeth for local people. Why? because our success has come from the hard work of firms like ABP and Carnival who have invested millions into the area. All Liverpool has done is taken a huge amount of public cash and reneged on an agreement. As a business man you would surely resent working hard to develop a business only for a rival to be given everything on a plate and then want a slice of your cake too.

As for 2015, Smith showed Denham that there was only a fag paper between them. If Cameron has any sense he'll parachute in a top candidate, someone in the vain of Louise Bagshaw, who has both the oratory skills and appeal to get Labour out of this city again.
Condor Man. You say, 'You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MPs have made life in Southampton better for local residents ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEIR PARTY DID IN GOVERNMENT.'
MP's, by the nature of their responsibility and where they work, are not involved in the running of the City of Southampton, that is the role of the City Council, and that is NOT run by Labour Councillors. City Councillors are responsible for housing, planning, social care, street lighting etc. Denham and Whitehead have worked hard, but not hit the headlines in Parliament, unlike their Tory counterpart, 'Nookey' Noakes!
So why not fight to keep the money that Labour took to give to the north from Southampton & the other Southern cities or didn't they feel that was what they were elected for? Come on your good at having a go at people asking them if they've been drinking? so you say Denham's a good M.P? so show us why he's been good for us his electorate? While your at it show us what Whitehead's done to help & benefit this city? They are elected by the people of this city to get the best deal for this city.Labour Governments have time & time again looked after the North at the South's detriment so don't tell me they are there to follow the party line they're not they're there to represent us
It was always claimed that the Tories pour money into the South, and they were in power considerably longer than Labour, so what benefits have Hampshire in general and Southampton in particular, got to show for it?

The money have been given to the city in the past, but they have done SFA to benefit the city, other than build tower block slums.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Negotiations may be ok if Smith is not involved..... .. only its been proven that he can't negotiate with his own emplyees[/p][/quote]What does your chum think of all this? Apart from looking at moribund shops in Northam exactly what has he done to promote trade in the city or in Britain in general?[/p][/quote]Oh dear Condor you are a sad,bitter and twisted little person aren't you. . Full of greed and envy you portray many of the characteristics of the Tory boy. . You cant stand to see your idol Royston FAIL at every level of local politics and is criticised not only by the public but by council employees and the menbers. . If you want to know what he thinks look it up !!. . Finally since becoming an MP he has certainly done more for this city than you and your Tory Lemmings put together. . Your contribution sadly is failure to even be able to give up posting the 40 days for Lent ....... yes you couldnt even do that .......... hypocrit or what. . I hope that has answered your question. . I'm smiling ....... you are such a mug !! .[/p][/quote]Is there really any need for back handed remarks are slights on my faith? If you knew what was happening in my life during lent you'd not be so quick to judge. I sincerely hope you never have to experience what I went through (see my other post about stem cell donors to get an idea). I'm no fan of Royston Smith, he has his failings as we all do. As for Denham doing so much for Southampton apart from state sponsered stuff exactly what has he done? I don't see people in Thornhill financially better off after the £50m the government wasted on that estate. Building white elephants like Eastpoint is not going to make people better off. Similarly by allowing Liverpool to break the terms of an agreement is not good business practice.[/p][/quote]Your problem is that you are quite happy to make the odd snide comment but when the tables are turned you dont like it. . I have no interest in Smith and despise the sort of poloitics that he stands for. . I have sympathy for your private life ... but unfortunately no interest in it. . Your private life is often made public so thats up to you ....... mine is always private. .[/p][/quote]well, at least your honest. You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MP's have made life in Southampton better for local residents above and beyond what their party did in government? Wealth creation is low in the city and is preventing future developments. If we lose business to Liverpool its a kick in the teeth for local people. Why? because our success has come from the hard work of firms like ABP and Carnival who have invested millions into the area. All Liverpool has done is taken a huge amount of public cash and reneged on an agreement. As a business man you would surely resent working hard to develop a business only for a rival to be given everything on a plate and then want a slice of your cake too. As for 2015, Smith showed Denham that there was only a fag paper between them. If Cameron has any sense he'll parachute in a top candidate, someone in the vain of Louise Bagshaw, who has both the oratory skills and appeal to get Labour out of this city again.[/p][/quote]Condor Man. You say, 'You have, however, failed to answer how both Labour MPs have made life in Southampton better for local residents ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEIR PARTY DID IN GOVERNMENT.' MP's, by the nature of their responsibility and where they work, are not involved in the running of the City of Southampton, that is the role of the City Council, and that is NOT run by Labour Councillors. City Councillors are responsible for housing, planning, social care, street lighting etc. Denham and Whitehead have worked hard, but not hit the headlines in Parliament, unlike their Tory counterpart, 'Nookey' Noakes![/p][/quote]So why not fight to keep the money that Labour took to give to the north from Southampton & the other Southern cities or didn't they feel that was what they were elected for? Come on your good at having a go at people asking them if they've been drinking? so you say Denham's a good M.P? so show us why he's been good for us his electorate? While your at it show us what Whitehead's done to help & benefit this city? They are elected by the people of this city to get the best deal for this city.Labour Governments have time & time again looked after the North at the South's detriment so don't tell me they are there to follow the party line they're not they're there to represent us[/p][/quote]It was always claimed that the Tories pour money into the South, and they were in power considerably longer than Labour, so what benefits have Hampshire in general and Southampton in particular, got to show for it? The money have been given to the city in the past, but they have done SFA to benefit the city, other than build tower block slums. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Sat 6 Aug 11

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.
Agreed, but Southampton has always been a tough, rough, working-class, docks town, and Fareham has always been more of a dormatory town. Not much in the way of Industry here.

What you tend to either forget or ignore is that Central government make grants to Councils, and the Councils decide how that money is spent.
For example, Southampton would get considerably more for schools/education than Fareham, and Southampton City Council, not its Members of Parliament, would decide how and where the money is spent.

Southampton's schools would, I imagine, be older than those in Fareham, and would probably require more spent on maintenance, but if (R) if a council delays maintenance, to save a few bob in a financial year, that maintenance will cost considerably more in the following year.

You mention follies of the previous government. I have no doubt that all governments have made mistakes. As I look at the proposed gas and electricity price hikes, I consider that it was Thatcher's folly to sell them, and North Sea Oil off so that we now, not only find ourselves at the mercy of foreign owners, but we have nothing to show for the money that the the Tory government of the time collected.

I could, of course, be wrong, and you could tell me how Southampton benefitted by the money the Tories raised by selling off British Aerospace, Cable&Wireless, BNOC, BT, British Gas, British Airways, British Steel and the Water Utilities?
Personally, I can think of none, but I do recall that we lost a hell of a lot on 16 September, 1992 as a result of Black Wednesday - hardly at Tory financial triumph!
Privatisation was needed to allow firms like British Gas and Telecom to get the investment they needed to develop. Pre 1980's profit making state services were subsidising the loss making steel, coal and shipbuilding industries. You could argue that was a good thing but ultimately it held us back economically as the money wasn't being reinvested where it was needed- hence why it took 3 months to get a phone connected.

Black Wednesday was caused by the £ being kept at an artificially high level to what was now the euro. Currency speculation lead by George Soros caused the collapse.
The question I asked was, could you tell me how Southampton benefitted from all of the money that the Thatcher Government raised by selling off those nationalised industries, and your response appeared to ignore it.

I am well aware of Black Wednesday and the Maestrict fiasco.

The sell-off of British Coal and British Rail came after that Triumph.
I can tell you the benefit we as a nation had. By putting it in private hands not public you never had tin pot dictators sorry shop stewards calling a strike on a whim. people thinking as it was state owned they could ask for what they wanted & got it.Do you remember the dockies wanted to expand the area where only dockies could work ? it took up most of town.do you remember British Leyland? a company heavily subsidised by us yet they were on strike all the time.catch a man a sleep suspend him STRIKE.I'll think you'll find that it was Tony Benn who had an agreement with the North sea companies & one of the reasons why we have such high fuel prices here ( Gas) is because no one wants a storage depot near them so our loving European brothers buy the gas cheap in the summer months store it & sell it back to us at ludicrous prices this would be happening even if it was in state ownership.Every time a site is earmarked for renewable energy some NIMBY protests look at the Bio plant,Wind farms on the isle of wight & many more.The money earned from these sell of went to pay of the country's debt that believe it or not Labour left. When Labour took over this time no debt when they left £1,000billion debt now unless you & Lone Ranger can tell us that we wouldn't end up like America by going Labours way then this government's way is the best.I don't agree with Mike Penning even considering Liverpools appeal as there's only so many ships to go round & why move unemployment from one area just to put it in another area in this country? if it was all new shipping lines that Liverpool had signed up fine pay off the grant you got under false pretences & let's get on with life
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Linesman, if you ever venture into Southampton you'll see that it's a very different place to Fareham. Whereas your town has 3 excellent comprehensive schools, ours only really has 1 that is anywhere near the Hampshire standard. Your town as a much stronger economy and per head residents are wealthier. Low and behold you have a Tory MP in Fareham. Southampton is an extremely poor place, both economically and socially. The previous government did little to put cash into peoples pockets, rather build follies like the Port Head in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Agreed, but Southampton has always been a tough, rough, working-class, docks town, and Fareham has always been more of a dormatory town. Not much in the way of Industry here. What you tend to either forget or ignore is that Central government make grants to Councils, and the Councils decide how that money is spent. For example, Southampton would get considerably more for schools/education than Fareham, and Southampton City Council, not its Members of Parliament, would decide how and where the money is spent. Southampton's schools would, I imagine, be older than those in Fareham, and would probably require more spent on maintenance, but if (R) if a council delays maintenance, to save a few bob in a financial year, that maintenance will cost considerably more in the following year. You mention follies of the previous government. I have no doubt that all governments have made mistakes. As I look at the proposed gas and electricity price hikes, I consider that it was Thatcher's folly to sell them, and North Sea Oil off so that we now, not only find ourselves at the mercy of foreign owners, but we have nothing to show for the money that the the Tory government of the time collected. I could, of course, be wrong, and you could tell me how Southampton benefitted by the money the Tories raised by selling off British Aerospace, Cable&Wireless, BNOC, BT, British Gas, British Airways, British Steel and the Water Utilities? Personally, I can think of none, but I do recall that we lost a hell of a lot on 16 September, 1992 as a result of Black Wednesday - hardly at Tory financial triumph![/p][/quote]Privatisation was needed to allow firms like British Gas and Telecom to get the investment they needed to develop. Pre 1980's profit making state services were subsidising the loss making steel, coal and shipbuilding industries. You could argue that was a good thing but ultimately it held us back economically as the money wasn't being reinvested where it was needed- hence why it took 3 months to get a phone connected. Black Wednesday was caused by the £ being kept at an artificially high level to what was now the euro. Currency speculation lead by George Soros caused the collapse.[/p][/quote]The question I asked was, could you tell me how Southampton benefitted from all of the money that the Thatcher Government raised by selling off those nationalised industries, and your response appeared to ignore it. I am well aware of Black Wednesday and the Maestrict fiasco. The sell-off of British Coal and British Rail came after that Triumph.[/p][/quote]I can tell you the benefit we as a nation had. By putting it in private hands not public you never had tin pot dictators sorry shop stewards calling a strike on a whim. people thinking as it was state owned they could ask for what they wanted & got it.Do you remember the dockies wanted to expand the area where only dockies could work ? it took up most of town.do you remember British Leyland? a company heavily subsidised by us yet they were on strike all the time.catch a man a sleep suspend him STRIKE.I'll think you'll find that it was Tony Benn who had an agreement with the North sea companies & one of the reasons why we have such high fuel prices here ( Gas) is because no one wants a storage depot near them so our loving European brothers buy the gas cheap in the summer months store it & sell it back to us at ludicrous prices this would be happening even if it was in state ownership.Every time a site is earmarked for renewable energy some NIMBY protests look at the Bio plant,Wind farms on the isle of wight & many more.The money earned from these sell of went to pay of the country's debt that believe it or not Labour left. When Labour took over this time no debt when they left £1,000billion debt now unless you & Lone Ranger can tell us that we wouldn't end up like America by going Labours way then this government's way is the best.I don't agree with Mike Penning even considering Liverpools appeal as there's only so many ships to go round & why move unemployment from one area just to put it in another area in this country? if it was all new shipping lines that Liverpool had signed up fine pay off the grant you got under false pretences & let's get on with life loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:09am Sun 7 Aug 11

Linesman says...

Now we have tinpot dictators telling us how much we will pay for gas and electricity.
When this Tory-led government decided to raise the tax on North Sea Oil in the last budget, these foreign operators decided to cut-back on production, so no gain there. By selling off, we lost control.

Gas was piped ashore, and is still piped ashore from the North Sea oil fields, so please don't tell fairy tales about storage tanks. An efficient Oil and Gas operation was sold off and is now has foreign owners.

If, as you claim, the money from the sell-off went to pay off the national debt, I would remind you that it was sold before the country went into the red again on Black Wednesday, a financial disaster of the Tory Government's own making. No US bank collapse then. No other country in financial melt-down with interest rates in their teens.

It would appear that your loosehead contains a large element of memory loss.
Now we have tinpot dictators telling us how much we will pay for gas and electricity. When this Tory-led government decided to raise the tax on North Sea Oil in the last budget, these foreign operators decided to cut-back on production, so no gain there. By selling off, we lost control. Gas was piped ashore, and is still piped ashore from the North Sea oil fields, so please don't tell fairy tales about storage tanks. An efficient Oil and Gas operation was sold off and is now has foreign owners. If, as you claim, the money from the sell-off went to pay off the national debt, I would remind you that it was sold before the country went into the red again on Black Wednesday, a financial disaster of the Tory Government's own making. No US bank collapse then. No other country in financial melt-down with interest rates in their teens. It would appear that your loosehead contains a large element of memory loss. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:50am Sun 7 Aug 11

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
Now we have tinpot dictators telling us how much we will pay for gas and electricity.
When this Tory-led government decided to raise the tax on North Sea Oil in the last budget, these foreign operators decided to cut-back on production, so no gain there. By selling off, we lost control.

Gas was piped ashore, and is still piped ashore from the North Sea oil fields, so please don't tell fairy tales about storage tanks. An efficient Oil and Gas operation was sold off and is now has foreign owners.

If, as you claim, the money from the sell-off went to pay off the national debt, I would remind you that it was sold before the country went into the red again on Black Wednesday, a financial disaster of the Tory Government's own making. No US bank collapse then. No other country in financial melt-down with interest rates in their teens.

It would appear that your loosehead contains a large element of memory loss.
So we pump it ashore throughout the year so who uses it in the summer months? get your facts right the Germans & French by huge amounts in the summer months & then sell to us at extortionate prices in the winter months.Before you answer with your Left Wing attitude research it & find out I am telling the truth.Also listen to the BBC & it's what their experts were telling the presenter.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Now we have tinpot dictators telling us how much we will pay for gas and electricity. When this Tory-led government decided to raise the tax on North Sea Oil in the last budget, these foreign operators decided to cut-back on production, so no gain there. By selling off, we lost control. Gas was piped ashore, and is still piped ashore from the North Sea oil fields, so please don't tell fairy tales about storage tanks. An efficient Oil and Gas operation was sold off and is now has foreign owners. If, as you claim, the money from the sell-off went to pay off the national debt, I would remind you that it was sold before the country went into the red again on Black Wednesday, a financial disaster of the Tory Government's own making. No US bank collapse then. No other country in financial melt-down with interest rates in their teens. It would appear that your loosehead contains a large element of memory loss.[/p][/quote]So we pump it ashore throughout the year so who uses it in the summer months? get your facts right the Germans & French by huge amounts in the summer months & then sell to us at extortionate prices in the winter months.Before you answer with your Left Wing attitude research it & find out I am telling the truth.Also listen to the BBC & it's what their experts were telling the presenter. loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:59am Sun 7 Aug 11

loosehead says...

Linesman you talk about the Black Wednesday incident it as well as the Gas shows us were only needed by Europe for our £12billion a year we pay.For our industry that's running to Poland we should never have gone in & the way it's going we'll soon be out that's once it's collapsed.I supported Tony Benn & the no campaign & still feel we're better off out.Liverpool wouldn't have got so much of our money in the guise of a European grant. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you have to try name calling or suggest I might have some form of memory loss as it seems to me you lost the ability to see both sides of an argument & only have left wing propaganda left in your head
Linesman you talk about the Black Wednesday incident it as well as the Gas shows us were only needed by Europe for our £12billion a year we pay.For our industry that's running to Poland we should never have gone in & the way it's going we'll soon be out that's once it's collapsed.I supported Tony Benn & the no campaign & still feel we're better off out.Liverpool wouldn't have got so much of our money in the guise of a European grant. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you have to try name calling or suggest I might have some form of memory loss as it seems to me you lost the ability to see both sides of an argument & only have left wing propaganda left in your head loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:20am Sun 7 Aug 11

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Now we have tinpot dictators telling us how much we will pay for gas and electricity.
When this Tory-led government decided to raise the tax on North Sea Oil in the last budget, these foreign operators decided to cut-back on production, so no gain there. By selling off, we lost control.


Gas was piped ashore, and is still piped ashore from the North Sea oil fields, so please don't tell fairy tales about storage tanks. An efficient Oil and Gas operation was sold off and is now has foreign owners.

If, as you claim, the money from the sell-off went to pay off the national debt, I would remind you that it was sold before the country went into the red again on Black Wednesday, a financial disaster of the Tory Government's own making. No US bank collapse then. No other country in financial melt-down with interest rates in their teens.

It would appear that your loosehead contains a large element of memory loss.
So we pump it ashore throughout the year so who uses it in the summer months? get your facts right the Germans & French by huge amounts in the summer months & then sell to us at extortionate prices in the winter months.Before you answer with your Left Wing attitude research it & find out I am telling the truth.Also listen to the BBC & it's what their experts were telling the presenter.
I have no doubts about who uses it, but who sells it? We no longer own it, so it is not us. Also, there are other sectors of the North Sea that are not in the British sector, and they have their customers. The output from the British sector has been reduced since the budget because of the increase in tax imposed.

With regard name-calling, I did not make your choice of name. Maybe I should modify my comment to read 'selective memory loss.'

As it would appear that you, and others, are putting all the blame on Brown and the Labour government for the national debt when the current, Tory-led government took over, I assume that, as you are a fair and reasonable person, you are blaming Cameron & Co for the deepening crisis.

The stock market is in free-fall at the moment, and Osbourne is bailing out Ireland with one hand, and still taking out loans with the other.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Now we have tinpot dictators telling us how much we will pay for gas and electricity. When this Tory-led government decided to raise the tax on North Sea Oil in the last budget, these foreign operators decided to cut-back on production, so no gain there. By selling off, we lost control. Gas was piped ashore, and is still piped ashore from the North Sea oil fields, so please don't tell fairy tales about storage tanks. An efficient Oil and Gas operation was sold off and is now has foreign owners. If, as you claim, the money from the sell-off went to pay off the national debt, I would remind you that it was sold before the country went into the red again on Black Wednesday, a financial disaster of the Tory Government's own making. No US bank collapse then. No other country in financial melt-down with interest rates in their teens. It would appear that your loosehead contains a large element of memory loss.[/p][/quote]So we pump it ashore throughout the year so who uses it in the summer months? get your facts right the Germans & French by huge amounts in the summer months & then sell to us at extortionate prices in the winter months.Before you answer with your Left Wing attitude research it & find out I am telling the truth.Also listen to the BBC & it's what their experts were telling the presenter.[/p][/quote]I have no doubts about who uses it, but who sells it? We no longer own it, so it is not us. Also, there are other sectors of the North Sea that are not in the British sector, and they have their customers. The output from the British sector has been reduced since the budget because of the increase in tax imposed. With regard name-calling, I did not make your choice of name. Maybe I should modify my comment to read 'selective memory loss.' As it would appear that you, and others, are putting all the blame on Brown and the Labour government for the national debt when the current, Tory-led government took over, I assume that, as you are a fair and reasonable person, you are blaming Cameron & Co for the deepening crisis. The stock market is in free-fall at the moment, and Osbourne is bailing out Ireland with one hand, and still taking out loans with the other. Linesman
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Sun 7 Aug 11

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Now we have tinpot dictators telling us how much we will pay for gas and electricity.
When this Tory-led government decided to raise the tax on North Sea Oil in the last budget, these foreign operators decided to cut-back on production, so no gain there. By selling off, we lost control.


Gas was piped ashore, and is still piped ashore from the North Sea oil fields, so please don't tell fairy tales about storage tanks. An efficient Oil and Gas operation was sold off and is now has foreign owners.

If, as you claim, the money from the sell-off went to pay off the national debt, I would remind you that it was sold before the country went into the red again on Black Wednesday, a financial disaster of the Tory Government's own making. No US bank collapse then. No other country in financial melt-down with interest rates in their teens.

It would appear that your loosehead contains a large element of memory loss.
So we pump it ashore throughout the year so who uses it in the summer months? get your facts right the Germans & French by huge amounts in the summer months & then sell to us at extortionate prices in the winter months.Before you answer with your Left Wing attitude research it & find out I am telling the truth.Also listen to the BBC & it's what their experts were telling the presenter.
I have no doubts about who uses it, but who sells it? We no longer own it, so it is not us. Also, there are other sectors of the North Sea that are not in the British sector, and they have their customers. The output from the British sector has been reduced since the budget because of the increase in tax imposed.

With regard name-calling, I did not make your choice of name. Maybe I should modify my comment to read 'selective memory loss.'

As it would appear that you, and others, are putting all the blame on Brown and the Labour government for the national debt when the current, Tory-led government took over, I assume that, as you are a fair and reasonable person, you are blaming Cameron & Co for the deepening crisis.

The stock market is in free-fall at the moment, and Osbourne is bailing out Ireland with one hand, and still taking out loans with the other.
So please explain to me why Brown openly admits to being partly to blame for the crisis also why is the debt £1,000billion when Labour only used approx.£100billion? kind of shoots your argument out of the water doesn't it? also the government has announced on just one cost saving measure they've saved £35billion so they seem to be doing it right or do you just want them to keep on spending & increasing the debt like Labour?America's now lost it's triple A rating & they reckon everyone in America's going to feel the effect with mortgages,loans & interest accrued by businesses meaning many could shut as credit will throttle them.So is Labours way of slow & never clear the debt & lose our triple A rating the best way? Any way this article is about A port lying to get public money to take work away from ports like Southampton & Dover so what has a person from Fareham got to do with Southampton?surely you should be more worried about Fareham or Portsmouth shouldn't you?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Now we have tinpot dictators telling us how much we will pay for gas and electricity. When this Tory-led government decided to raise the tax on North Sea Oil in the last budget, these foreign operators decided to cut-back on production, so no gain there. By selling off, we lost control. Gas was piped ashore, and is still piped ashore from the North Sea oil fields, so please don't tell fairy tales about storage tanks. An efficient Oil and Gas operation was sold off and is now has foreign owners. If, as you claim, the money from the sell-off went to pay off the national debt, I would remind you that it was sold before the country went into the red again on Black Wednesday, a financial disaster of the Tory Government's own making. No US bank collapse then. No other country in financial melt-down with interest rates in their teens. It would appear that your loosehead contains a large element of memory loss.[/p][/quote]So we pump it ashore throughout the year so who uses it in the summer months? get your facts right the Germans & French by huge amounts in the summer months & then sell to us at extortionate prices in the winter months.Before you answer with your Left Wing attitude research it & find out I am telling the truth.Also listen to the BBC & it's what their experts were telling the presenter.[/p][/quote]I have no doubts about who uses it, but who sells it? We no longer own it, so it is not us. Also, there are other sectors of the North Sea that are not in the British sector, and they have their customers. The output from the British sector has been reduced since the budget because of the increase in tax imposed. With regard name-calling, I did not make your choice of name. Maybe I should modify my comment to read 'selective memory loss.' As it would appear that you, and others, are putting all the blame on Brown and the Labour government for the national debt when the current, Tory-led government took over, I assume that, as you are a fair and reasonable person, you are blaming Cameron & Co for the deepening crisis. The stock market is in free-fall at the moment, and Osbourne is bailing out Ireland with one hand, and still taking out loans with the other.[/p][/quote]So please explain to me why Brown openly admits to being partly to blame for the crisis also why is the debt £1,000billion when Labour only used approx.£100billion? kind of shoots your argument out of the water doesn't it? also the government has announced on just one cost saving measure they've saved £35billion so they seem to be doing it right or do you just want them to keep on spending & increasing the debt like Labour?America's now lost it's triple A rating & they reckon everyone in America's going to feel the effect with mortgages,loans & interest accrued by businesses meaning many could shut as credit will throttle them.So is Labours way of slow & never clear the debt & lose our triple A rating the best way? Any way this article is about A port lying to get public money to take work away from ports like Southampton & Dover so what has a person from Fareham got to do with Southampton?surely you should be more worried about Fareham or Portsmouth shouldn't you? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Sun 7 Aug 11

Linesman says...

No, it does not. Anyone, with the benefit of hindsight can say that they have got things wrong. At the time of the collapse of the US banks, Brown did what he thought was the right thing to do by bailing out thebuilding societies and banks that were in danger of going bankrupt and also councils that had invested their money in Icelandic banks. This was done to prevent, or reduce the knock-on effect of businesses closing, morgage foreclosures and a dramatic rise in unemployment. At the time, the opposition parties offered no alternative solution to the problem.

Where Brown made his mistake was that although he set in train help to secure the banks and people's homes, jobs and savings, he did not attack those who shared a big responsibility for the problem - the bankers, which is why they are still creaming it in, while others of Cameron's 'big society' are having to tough it out.

The bankers get their multi-million pound bonuses and despite Gas prices rising by 18% and Electricity by 11%, pensioners, whose pensions have lagged behind the inflation rate, are having their winter fuel allowance reduced by £50. - £100 if they are 80+.

You ask, 'What has a person from Fareham got to do with Southampton?' I suppose that it is possible that you are still living in the house where you were born, and never moved. I have. Born and brought up in Southampton, but lived and worked in various places in the UK and abroad.

With regard Fareham and Portsmouth, why should I be more worried about them? They are both having their rubbish collected and their streets kept clean. The social workers are attending to those in need of attention.
No, it does not. Anyone, with the benefit of hindsight can say that they have got things wrong. At the time of the collapse of the US banks, Brown did what he thought was the right thing to do by bailing out thebuilding societies and banks that were in danger of going bankrupt and also councils that had invested their money in Icelandic banks. This was done to prevent, or reduce the knock-on effect of businesses closing, morgage foreclosures and a dramatic rise in unemployment. At the time, the opposition parties offered no alternative solution to the problem. Where Brown made his mistake was that although he set in train help to secure the banks and people's homes, jobs and savings, he did not attack those who shared a big responsibility for the problem - the bankers, which is why they are still creaming it in, while others of Cameron's 'big society' are having to tough it out. The bankers get their multi-million pound bonuses and despite Gas prices rising by 18% and Electricity by 11%, pensioners, whose pensions have lagged behind the inflation rate, are having their winter fuel allowance reduced by £50. - £100 if they are 80+. You ask, 'What has a person from Fareham got to do with Southampton?' I suppose that it is possible that you are still living in the house where you were born, and never moved. I have. Born and brought up in Southampton, but lived and worked in various places in the UK and abroad. With regard Fareham and Portsmouth, why should I be more worried about them? They are both having their rubbish collected and their streets kept clean. The social workers are attending to those in need of attention. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Sun 7 Aug 11

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
No, it does not. Anyone, with the benefit of hindsight can say that they have got things wrong. At the time of the collapse of the US banks, Brown did what he thought was the right thing to do by bailing out thebuilding societies and banks that were in danger of going bankrupt and also councils that had invested their money in Icelandic banks. This was done to prevent, or reduce the knock-on effect of businesses closing, morgage foreclosures and a dramatic rise in unemployment. At the time, the opposition parties offered no alternative solution to the problem.

Where Brown made his mistake was that although he set in train help to secure the banks and people's homes, jobs and savings, he did not attack those who shared a big responsibility for the problem - the bankers, which is why they are still creaming it in, while others of Cameron's 'big society' are having to tough it out.

The bankers get their multi-million pound bonuses and despite Gas prices rising by 18% and Electricity by 11%, pensioners, whose pensions have lagged behind the inflation rate, are having their winter fuel allowance reduced by £50. - £100 if they are 80+.

You ask, 'What has a person from Fareham got to do with Southampton?' I suppose that it is possible that you are still living in the house where you were born, and never moved. I have. Born and brought up in Southampton, but lived and worked in various places in the UK and abroad.

With regard Fareham and Portsmouth, why should I be more worried about them? They are both having their rubbish collected and their streets kept clean. The social workers are attending to those in need of attention.
I've lived in Southampton for 54 years. I have voted Labour but after the last disastrous government & the debt the run up trying to buy their way to cling on to power I will never vote Labour again.If a party could offer a sound economical package plus pull out of Europe I would vote for them but I don't think UKIP are there & none of the major parties will go that far. Brown promised us a vote on the constitution but to get it past Ireland they changed it to the treaty so Brown decided we didn't get a vote on it & he new best & like the economy he was wrong on both accounts.So please don't write any more posts on this site unless it's about the article in question as we could keep this going for weeks
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: No, it does not. Anyone, with the benefit of hindsight can say that they have got things wrong. At the time of the collapse of the US banks, Brown did what he thought was the right thing to do by bailing out thebuilding societies and banks that were in danger of going bankrupt and also councils that had invested their money in Icelandic banks. This was done to prevent, or reduce the knock-on effect of businesses closing, morgage foreclosures and a dramatic rise in unemployment. At the time, the opposition parties offered no alternative solution to the problem. Where Brown made his mistake was that although he set in train help to secure the banks and people's homes, jobs and savings, he did not attack those who shared a big responsibility for the problem - the bankers, which is why they are still creaming it in, while others of Cameron's 'big society' are having to tough it out. The bankers get their multi-million pound bonuses and despite Gas prices rising by 18% and Electricity by 11%, pensioners, whose pensions have lagged behind the inflation rate, are having their winter fuel allowance reduced by £50. - £100 if they are 80+. You ask, 'What has a person from Fareham got to do with Southampton?' I suppose that it is possible that you are still living in the house where you were born, and never moved. I have. Born and brought up in Southampton, but lived and worked in various places in the UK and abroad. With regard Fareham and Portsmouth, why should I be more worried about them? They are both having their rubbish collected and their streets kept clean. The social workers are attending to those in need of attention.[/p][/quote]I've lived in Southampton for 54 years. I have voted Labour but after the last disastrous government & the debt the run up trying to buy their way to cling on to power I will never vote Labour again.If a party could offer a sound economical package plus pull out of Europe I would vote for them but I don't think UKIP are there & none of the major parties will go that far. Brown promised us a vote on the constitution but to get it past Ireland they changed it to the treaty so Brown decided we didn't get a vote on it & he new best & like the economy he was wrong on both accounts.So please don't write any more posts on this site unless it's about the article in question as we could keep this going for weeks loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Sun 7 Aug 11

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
No, it does not. Anyone, with the benefit of hindsight can say that they have got things wrong. At the time of the collapse of the US banks, Brown did what he thought was the right thing to do by bailing out thebuilding societies and banks that were in danger of going bankrupt and also councils that had invested their money in Icelandic banks. This was done to prevent, or reduce the knock-on effect of businesses closing, morgage foreclosures and a dramatic rise in unemployment. At the time, the opposition parties offered no alternative solution to the problem.

Where Brown made his mistake was that although he set in train help to secure the banks and people's homes, jobs and savings, he did not attack those who shared a big responsibility for the problem - the bankers, which is why they are still creaming it in, while others of Cameron's 'big society' are having to tough it out.

The bankers get their multi-million pound bonuses and despite Gas prices rising by 18% and Electricity by 11%, pensioners, whose pensions have lagged behind the inflation rate, are having their winter fuel allowance reduced by £50. - £100 if they are 80+.

You ask, 'What has a person from Fareham got to do with Southampton?' I suppose that it is possible that you are still living in the house where you were born, and never moved. I have. Born and brought up in Southampton, but lived and worked in various places in the UK and abroad.

With regard Fareham and Portsmouth, why should I be more worried about them? They are both having their rubbish collected and their streets kept clean. The social workers are attending to those in need of attention.
I've lived in Southampton for 54 years. I have voted Labour but after the last disastrous government & the debt the run up trying to buy their way to cling on to power I will never vote Labour again.If a party could offer a sound economical package plus pull out of Europe I would vote for them but I don't think UKIP are there & none of the major parties will go that far. Brown promised us a vote on the constitution but to get it past Ireland they changed it to the treaty so Brown decided we didn't get a vote on it & he new best & like the economy he was wrong on both accounts.So please don't write any more posts on this site unless it's about the article in question as we could keep this going for weeks
The Tories promised a referendum before they would take us into Europe, but didn't. What they did do was to hold a referendum After the event.
I was not pro-Europe, and would have voted against if I had been given the chance, but I voted to stay in for three reasons:-
1) We were already committed, and it would have cost a fortune to renage.
2) I think that when an agreement has been signed, to pull out immediately afterwards does not enhance the country's reputation for reliablity.
3) By signing, we had lost major trading partners that would not be quite as keen to deal with us as they had taken up other options.

With regard your request. OK! But it was not me that was slagging off Brown.

I can only imagine that you will be one of the 'I don't vote' brigade come the next election. Never going to vote Labour again. No faith in UKIP and with the way that the Dodgy Duo are handling things, no faith in the Tories or the LibDems.

I guess you are a natural Green.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: No, it does not. Anyone, with the benefit of hindsight can say that they have got things wrong. At the time of the collapse of the US banks, Brown did what he thought was the right thing to do by bailing out thebuilding societies and banks that were in danger of going bankrupt and also councils that had invested their money in Icelandic banks. This was done to prevent, or reduce the knock-on effect of businesses closing, morgage foreclosures and a dramatic rise in unemployment. At the time, the opposition parties offered no alternative solution to the problem. Where Brown made his mistake was that although he set in train help to secure the banks and people's homes, jobs and savings, he did not attack those who shared a big responsibility for the problem - the bankers, which is why they are still creaming it in, while others of Cameron's 'big society' are having to tough it out. The bankers get their multi-million pound bonuses and despite Gas prices rising by 18% and Electricity by 11%, pensioners, whose pensions have lagged behind the inflation rate, are having their winter fuel allowance reduced by £50. - £100 if they are 80+. You ask, 'What has a person from Fareham got to do with Southampton?' I suppose that it is possible that you are still living in the house where you were born, and never moved. I have. Born and brought up in Southampton, but lived and worked in various places in the UK and abroad. With regard Fareham and Portsmouth, why should I be more worried about them? They are both having their rubbish collected and their streets kept clean. The social workers are attending to those in need of attention.[/p][/quote]I've lived in Southampton for 54 years. I have voted Labour but after the last disastrous government & the debt the run up trying to buy their way to cling on to power I will never vote Labour again.If a party could offer a sound economical package plus pull out of Europe I would vote for them but I don't think UKIP are there & none of the major parties will go that far. Brown promised us a vote on the constitution but to get it past Ireland they changed it to the treaty so Brown decided we didn't get a vote on it & he new best & like the economy he was wrong on both accounts.So please don't write any more posts on this site unless it's about the article in question as we could keep this going for weeks[/p][/quote]The Tories promised a referendum before they would take us into Europe, but didn't. What they did do was to hold a referendum After the event. I was not pro-Europe, and would have voted against if I had been given the chance, but I voted to stay in for three reasons:- 1) We were already committed, and it would have cost a fortune to renage. 2) I think that when an agreement has been signed, to pull out immediately afterwards does not enhance the country's reputation for reliablity. 3) By signing, we had lost major trading partners that would not be quite as keen to deal with us as they had taken up other options. With regard your request. OK! But it was not me that was slagging off Brown. I can only imagine that you will be one of the 'I don't vote' brigade come the next election. Never going to vote Labour again. No faith in UKIP and with the way that the Dodgy Duo are handling things, no faith in the Tories or the LibDems. I guess you are a natural Green. Linesman
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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