Unions reject 'final proposal' from Southampton City Council

Southampton Unite and Unison members marching in the city to protest about Southampton City Council’s proposed pay cuts.

Southampton Unite and Unison members marching in the city to protest about Southampton City Council’s proposed pay cuts.

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

UNION members have rejected a final proposal to end six months of industrial action in Southampton over council pay cuts.

The union members voted three to two to reject the proposal to lift around half the workforce from wage cuts of two to 5.5 per cent brought in under threat of dismissal in July.

Other staff earning over £22,000 would have had part of their pay cuts reversed, although a two year pay freeze would remain.

Fewer than half the 2,400 members of the Unison, Unite and Ucatt unions balloted took part in the postal vote.

Unite members, including bin men, who were urged by the union to reject the proposal, voted 266 to 53 to reject it. Union leaders said a condition that a £12m legal claim was dropped was unacceptable.

Unite convenor Mark Wood said: “They have placed clearly unacceptable pre-conditions on this proposal, resulting in this resounding rejection.

“We stated from the start that promises from council leaders to protect jobs and services were false, but as even more redundancies are announced and plans for the wholesale privatisation of services are uncovered, we take no comfort as the unfortunate truth is revealed”.

The larger Unison union told its 1,600 members the proposal was the best it could negotiate. They rejected it 389 to 340 - a slim 49 majority.

Related links

Unison branch secretary Mike Tucker said: “The vote was influenced by the further 143 redundancies the Conservatives announced in October and the mass privatisation they announced in November.

“The Conservative controlled council is at war with its workforce as they continue to make them pay for a crisis we did not create.”

Union stewards will meet early next month to consider what further action to take following the ballot results. Industrial action is meanwhile continuing.

Council leader Royston Smith said: “Today’s result is hugely disappointing and I am sure that the vast majority of our residents will share this disappointment.

“The improved and final offer made by the council would have protected more than half of the organisation from direct pay cuts while protecting services by keeping our staff employed."

Comments (105)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:49pm Tue 22 Nov 11

SotonLad says...

SCUM
SCUM SotonLad
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Oh dear................
..............
Oh dear................ .............. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Condor Man says...

Keep it going, the unions will find that a Labour council would sack 1,500 of their workers. Good luck finding new jobs in May.
Keep it going, the unions will find that a Labour council would sack 1,500 of their workers. Good luck finding new jobs in May. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Maine Lobster says...

I don't blame the unions for rejecting the offer. The Council has deliberately provoked this situation while spending millions on other pet projects. The ordinary workers should not be expected to take a pay cut while the Council spends a fortune elsewhere.
The whole dispute has been stoked by politicians seeking to promote their own image and interests. The costs of funding the dispute,hiring contractors,legal costs etc must be enormous. Money that could have been spent on avoiding the industrial action.
I don't blame the unions for rejecting the offer. The Council has deliberately provoked this situation while spending millions on other pet projects. The ordinary workers should not be expected to take a pay cut while the Council spends a fortune elsewhere. The whole dispute has been stoked by politicians seeking to promote their own image and interests. The costs of funding the dispute,hiring contractors,legal costs etc must be enormous. Money that could have been spent on avoiding the industrial action. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Paramjit Bahia says...

Hardly surprising many nether trust the newspapers not Southampton Council
.
Echo made big play out of only 30 members of UCCAT and tried to blame them for holding virtually others to ransom
.
Truth has tendency to come out, regardless of whatever creations of sick imagination crazy fibs Thatcherites and Journalists may try to tell
.
Members of the unions know how the Council is trying to cheat them, so no surprise they have rejected the insultingly silly offer.
Hardly surprising many nether trust the newspapers not Southampton Council . Echo made big play out of only 30 members of UCCAT and tried to blame them for holding virtually others to ransom . Truth has tendency to come out, regardless of whatever creations of sick imagination crazy fibs Thatcherites and Journalists may try to tell . Members of the unions know how the Council is trying to cheat them, so no surprise they have rejected the insultingly silly offer. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

7:29pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Here we go again..... Yet another opportunity for everyone to bash Royston and the Unions.

BORED NOW!!

I just wish a solution could be found wether it be Union members accepting a small cut or Royston just sacking an extra few hundred as Labour suggested.

Just sort it out!!
Here we go again..... Yet another opportunity for everyone to bash Royston and the Unions. BORED NOW!! I just wish a solution could be found wether it be Union members accepting a small cut or Royston just sacking an extra few hundred as Labour suggested. Just sort it out!! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Tue 22 Nov 11

dango says...

suckers, the lot of 'em, don't they see it?
suckers, the lot of 'em, don't they see it? dango
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Tue 22 Nov 11

captain-chaos says...

SotonLad wrote:
SCUM
Who is? Can't decide who you mean, SCC or the unions.
[quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote: SCUM[/p][/quote]Who is? Can't decide who you mean, SCC or the unions. captain-chaos
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!! Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If you are right, I hope he hurries up as this is dragging on far too long!
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If you are right, I hope he hurries up as this is dragging on far too long! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If you are right, I hope he hurries up as this is dragging on far too long!
If we are right it shows how much of a liar the council leader is!!10 years a Tory Party member, 10 years a fraud!!
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If you are right, I hope he hurries up as this is dragging on far too long![/p][/quote]If we are right it shows how much of a liar the council leader is!!10 years a Tory Party member, 10 years a fraud!! Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If you are right, I hope he hurries up as this is dragging on far too long!
If we are right it shows how much of a liar the council leader is!!10 years a Tory Party member, 10 years a fraud!!
Ant, we'll see. To be honest I can't be bothered to take any side right now as I'm bored of it all.
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If you are right, I hope he hurries up as this is dragging on far too long![/p][/quote]If we are right it shows how much of a liar the council leader is!!10 years a Tory Party member, 10 years a fraud!![/p][/quote]Ant, we'll see. To be honest I can't be bothered to take any side right now as I'm bored of it all. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:12pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Condor Man says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

Interesting though that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s.
.
Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO there wasnt to be.
.
Southampton vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician.
Interesting though that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s. . Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO there wasnt to be. . Southampton vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s.
.
Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be.
.
Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it.
Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s. . Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be. . Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it. Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

So good I said it twice!!:-)
So good I said it twice!!:-) Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s.
.
Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be.
.
Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it.
Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees.

Probably best to let the tribunal go ahead and we can put this to bed once and for all.

Then the workers will probably pick up the tab in job losses?
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s. . Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be. . Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it.[/p][/quote]Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees. Probably best to let the tribunal go ahead and we can put this to bed once and for all. Then the workers will probably pick up the tab in job losses? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

So good I said it twice!!:-)
So good I said it twice!!:-) Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s.
.
Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be.
.
Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it.
Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees.

Probably best to let the tribunal go ahead and we can put this to bed once and for all.

Then the workers will probably pick up the tab in job losses?
Probably not because 'Adolf' Smith will make them redundant or outsource them. After all that is what Tory councils have done in the rest of the South East.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s. . Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be. . Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it.[/p][/quote]Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees. Probably best to let the tribunal go ahead and we can put this to bed once and for all. Then the workers will probably pick up the tab in job losses?[/p][/quote]Probably not because 'Adolf' Smith will make them redundant or outsource them. After all that is what Tory councils have done in the rest of the South East. Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s.
.
Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be.
.
Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it.
Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees.

Probably best to let the tribunal go ahead and we can put this to bed once and for all.

Then the workers will probably pick up the tab in job losses?
"Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees", its called hypocracy from what I recall.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s. . Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be. . Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it.[/p][/quote]Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees. Probably best to let the tribunal go ahead and we can put this to bed once and for all. Then the workers will probably pick up the tab in job losses?[/p][/quote]"Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees", its called hypocracy from what I recall. Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s.
.
Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be.
.
Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it.
Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees.

Probably best to let the tribunal go ahead and we can put this to bed once and for all.

Then the workers will probably pick up the tab in job losses?
Probably not because 'Adolf' Smith will make them redundant or outsource them. After all that is what Tory councils have done in the rest of the South East.
But surely, either way the workers will lose? If the Council win the tribunal then the workers lose. If The workers win the tribunal the workers will pay the costs in job cuts?

It needs to be ended, one way or another?
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Interesting though, that one of the main reasons why this offer was rejected was because the Council/Tories put pre conditions on the offer ie drop the legal claim. Now both IronLady1810 and Loosehead both made big issues about the unions making pre conditions back in July. Yet when Smudger and his mates do it, its all OK!! Well the council have certainly failed big time here. Most Southampton residents can see that it was the Tories conducting the political campaign, trying to score the political points , trying to recreate the Miners strike of the mid 80s. . Lets go back to June. If the Council had dropped the sacking date of July 11th for a few weeks there might have been a negotiated solution but due to the Council Leaders EGO that wasnt to be. . Southampton, vote the Council Leaders Party out next May. He (Smith) has earned NO credibility and is just a minor 2-bit amateur politician. This proves it.[/p][/quote]Don't forget though, by the Council asking for the action to be stopped will save us Tax payers a fortune in legal fees. Probably best to let the tribunal go ahead and we can put this to bed once and for all. Then the workers will probably pick up the tab in job losses?[/p][/quote]Probably not because 'Adolf' Smith will make them redundant or outsource them. After all that is what Tory councils have done in the rest of the South East.[/p][/quote]But surely, either way the workers will lose? If the Council win the tribunal then the workers lose. If The workers win the tribunal the workers will pay the costs in job cuts? It needs to be ended, one way or another? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Huey says...

Up the union these are hard working common folk they just want a fair deal for the work they do.
I have more in common with them then the privately educated ruling tory elite.
Slash Tories, not the common man's wage and benefits
Up the union these are hard working common folk they just want a fair deal for the work they do. I have more in common with them then the privately educated ruling tory elite. Slash Tories, not the common man's wage and benefits Huey
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge.
.
Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!!
surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge. . Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!! Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge.
.
Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!!
OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................
....................
...
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge. . Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!![/p][/quote]OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................ .................... ... IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge.
.
Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!!
OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................

....................

...
Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge. . Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!![/p][/quote]OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................ .................... ...[/p][/quote]Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it. Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge.
.
Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!!
OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................


....................


...
Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.
Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago.

I have never voted Tory as I have always said!
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge. . Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!![/p][/quote]OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................ .................... ...[/p][/quote]Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.[/p][/quote]Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago. I have never voted Tory as I have always said! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:52pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge.
.
Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!!
OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................



....................



...
Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.
Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago.

I have never voted Tory as I have always said!
Dont believe you!!
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge. . Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!![/p][/quote]OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................ .................... ...[/p][/quote]Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.[/p][/quote]Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago. I have never voted Tory as I have always said![/p][/quote]Dont believe you!! Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge.
.
Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!!
OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................




....................




...
Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.
Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago.

I have never voted Tory as I have always said!
Dont believe you!!
Couldn't care less!!

Doesn't make any difference to the workers who are in a lose lose situation. Even if Royston gets the boot, someone will have to sort out the costs and finances of this fiasco.
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge. . Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!![/p][/quote]OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................ .................... ...[/p][/quote]Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.[/p][/quote]Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago. I have never voted Tory as I have always said![/p][/quote]Dont believe you!![/p][/quote]Couldn't care less!! Doesn't make any difference to the workers who are in a lose lose situation. Even if Royston gets the boot, someone will have to sort out the costs and finances of this fiasco. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge.
.
Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!!
OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................





....................





...
Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.
Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago.

I have never voted Tory as I have always said!
Dont believe you!!
Couldn't care less!!

Doesn't make any difference to the workers who are in a lose lose situation. Even if Royston gets the boot, someone will have to sort out the costs and finances of this fiasco.
It is blatently obvious you couldnt care less. That is what Conservatism is all about!
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge. . Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!![/p][/quote]OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................ .................... ...[/p][/quote]Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.[/p][/quote]Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago. I have never voted Tory as I have always said![/p][/quote]Dont believe you!![/p][/quote]Couldn't care less!! Doesn't make any difference to the workers who are in a lose lose situation. Even if Royston gets the boot, someone will have to sort out the costs and finances of this fiasco.[/p][/quote]It is blatently obvious you couldnt care less. That is what Conservatism is all about! Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge.
.
Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!!
OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................






....................






...
Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.
Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago.

I have never voted Tory as I have always said!
Dont believe you!!
Couldn't care less!!

Doesn't make any difference to the workers who are in a lose lose situation. Even if Royston gets the boot, someone will have to sort out the costs and finances of this fiasco.
It is blatently obvious you couldnt care less. That is what Conservatism is all about!
Rather than throw insults at me, comment on what I have said regarding the workers in a lose lose situation.
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: surely? Dont call me surely. Job losses and cuts is what this council is about. They need to save over £75 million. Unless the Tribunal win for the Unions can be negotiated with a sensible council leadership to restore the pay cuts. Now there is the challenge. . Meanwhile we, the residents pay £15 million interest p.a. on all the 'vanity' projects Smudger has taken Capital Loans out for.Any safe Tory seats anyone? please send answers on a postcard to the Council Leader, Civic Centre Southampton, mind the building work, you are paying for it!![/p][/quote]OK, I tried having a sensible debate without slating workers/Unions etc. I'll give up then................ .................... ...[/p][/quote]Your comments over the last 4 months have suggested you are not interested in sensible debate. You are just re vomiting the same old Tory newspeak from Fortress Royston. Everyone is bored with it.[/p][/quote]Read above and open your eyes! I'm talking about this article not something from 4 months ago. I have never voted Tory as I have always said![/p][/quote]Dont believe you!![/p][/quote]Couldn't care less!! Doesn't make any difference to the workers who are in a lose lose situation. Even if Royston gets the boot, someone will have to sort out the costs and finances of this fiasco.[/p][/quote]It is blatently obvious you couldnt care less. That is what Conservatism is all about![/p][/quote]Rather than throw insults at me, comment on what I have said regarding the workers in a lose lose situation. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

i am not insulting you , I am stating the obvious, you delicate flower.
i am not insulting you , I am stating the obvious, you delicate flower. Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
i am not insulting you , I am stating the obvious, you delicate flower.
Why not stick to the topic and answer my post regarding lose lose then? Weed - Not an insult, just opposite to flower LOL x
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: i am not insulting you , I am stating the obvious, you delicate flower.[/p][/quote]Why not stick to the topic and answer my post regarding lose lose then? Weed - Not an insult, just opposite to flower LOL x IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

Workers are in a lose lose situation regardless. The fight is with the Government who have the barmy idea that sacking and cutting is the way to tackle the deficit. SCC Tories are just 'grocery clerks collecting a bill' from public sector workers (apologies to Apocalypse Now!!)
Workers are in a lose lose situation regardless. The fight is with the Government who have the barmy idea that sacking and cutting is the way to tackle the deficit. SCC Tories are just 'grocery clerks collecting a bill' from public sector workers (apologies to Apocalypse Now!!) Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Workers are in a lose lose situation regardless. The fight is with the Government who have the barmy idea that sacking and cutting is the way to tackle the deficit. SCC Tories are just 'grocery clerks collecting a bill' from public sector workers (apologies to Apocalypse Now!!)
Thank you.
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Workers are in a lose lose situation regardless. The fight is with the Government who have the barmy idea that sacking and cutting is the way to tackle the deficit. SCC Tories are just 'grocery clerks collecting a bill' from public sector workers (apologies to Apocalypse Now!!)[/p][/quote]Thank you. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Tue 22 Nov 11

loosehead says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Workers are in a lose lose situation regardless. The fight is with the Government who have the barmy idea that sacking and cutting is the way to tackle the deficit. SCC Tories are just 'grocery clerks collecting a bill' from public sector workers (apologies to Apocalypse Now!!)
Well Ant the bore I'm a Tory & I couldn't care less what you think.
The Unite union agreed with Unison & the council to drop the legal action they also asked for more redundancies & a higher rate before pay cuts then they finished talks all parties thought an agreement had been reached.
Even though Unison would have liked more they said it was the best they were going to get.
But that Idiot Ian Woodland reneged on the deal influenced the vote which as far as I was aware he was not allowed to do & then UCATT crawled out of the woodwork on the side of Unite?
The document for change was/is a paper with several ideas for the unions & council to talk about & to pick the best way forward.
If this is how Unite talk/negotiate then what's the point just take on a private company to do bin collections & transfer these workers across then just negotiate with Unison on the future of the rest of the public sector workers.
If you had half a brain you wouldn't be having a go at Iron Lady you would be turning your venom on Woodland asking him what the hell he's doing putting all these workers jobs at risk just remember 685 applicants for 16 jobs quite easy to replace the current refuse collecting team so why take the risk on the legal action?
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Workers are in a lose lose situation regardless. The fight is with the Government who have the barmy idea that sacking and cutting is the way to tackle the deficit. SCC Tories are just 'grocery clerks collecting a bill' from public sector workers (apologies to Apocalypse Now!!)[/p][/quote]Well Ant the bore I'm a Tory & I couldn't care less what you think. The Unite union agreed with Unison & the council to drop the legal action they also asked for more redundancies & a higher rate before pay cuts then they finished talks all parties thought an agreement had been reached. Even though Unison would have liked more they said it was the best they were going to get. But that Idiot Ian Woodland reneged on the deal influenced the vote which as far as I was aware he was not allowed to do & then UCATT crawled out of the woodwork on the side of Unite? The document for change was/is a paper with several ideas for the unions & council to talk about & to pick the best way forward. If this is how Unite talk/negotiate then what's the point just take on a private company to do bin collections & transfer these workers across then just negotiate with Unison on the future of the rest of the public sector workers. If you had half a brain you wouldn't be having a go at Iron Lady you would be turning your venom on Woodland asking him what the hell he's doing putting all these workers jobs at risk just remember 685 applicants for 16 jobs quite easy to replace the current refuse collecting team so why take the risk on the legal action? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Loosehead, it took approx 30 posts for Ant to admit he has no issue with Royston and that his issues are with the main Government.

This is the similar situation with the Unions.

BUT, this is a local issue. I assume things are being dragged out on the hope the entire Country will kick off?

Whatever happens, the costs to SCC are already happening and will have to be met in the future no matter who is in power.

I appreciate Ant being honest finally.
Loosehead, it took approx 30 posts for Ant to admit he has no issue with Royston and that his issues are with the main Government. This is the similar situation with the Unions. BUT, this is a local issue. I assume things are being dragged out on the hope the entire Country will kick off? Whatever happens, the costs to SCC are already happening and will have to be met in the future no matter who is in power. I appreciate Ant being honest finally. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Tue 22 Nov 11

good-gosh says...

Now is the time to write down a prediction of the solution. Seal the note in an envelope and hide it in a summer jacket pocket. Take comfort from this wisdom and sleep peacefully through the winter. Rediscover it next summer and see how close it was to reality.
Now is the time to write down a prediction of the solution. Seal the note in an envelope and hide it in a summer jacket pocket. Take comfort from this wisdom and sleep peacefully through the winter. Rediscover it next summer and see how close it was to reality. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

11:09pm Tue 22 Nov 11

TEBOURBA says...

According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote!
What does this tell us?
I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted.
Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us? TEBOURBA
  • Score: 0

11:14pm Tue 22 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

TEBOURBA wrote:
According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote!
What does this tell us?
I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted.
Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed.

Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee.

It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
[quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

11:42pm Tue 22 Nov 11

Poppy22 says...

Think both sides need to go on a negotiating course - the aim is to get a win-win situation, not a lose-lose! It's about time everyone - whether on staff or management - ignored what political party they support and just got on with providing the service that the people of Southampton expect at a reasonable cost. In a recession everyone has to tighten their belts and the public sector ought to be showing the way to do this, not lagging about 15 years behind the private sector!
Think both sides need to go on a negotiating course - the aim is to get a win-win situation, not a lose-lose! It's about time everyone - whether on staff or management - ignored what political party they support and just got on with providing the service that the people of Southampton expect at a reasonable cost. In a recession everyone has to tighten their belts and the public sector ought to be showing the way to do this, not lagging about 15 years behind the private sector! Poppy22
  • Score: 0

12:00am Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Poppy22 wrote:
Think both sides need to go on a negotiating course - the aim is to get a win-win situation, not a lose-lose! It's about time everyone - whether on staff or management - ignored what political party they support and just got on with providing the service that the people of Southampton expect at a reasonable cost. In a recession everyone has to tighten their belts and the public sector ought to be showing the way to do this, not lagging about 15 years behind the private sector!
There is no win win situation as the Council have to make cuts. It's either a pay cut or job losses. So will always be a lose lose.

People forget SCC still have to spend money in Leisure and future investments etc.

Staff pay has a budget, wether that means cuts or losses.
[quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: Think both sides need to go on a negotiating course - the aim is to get a win-win situation, not a lose-lose! It's about time everyone - whether on staff or management - ignored what political party they support and just got on with providing the service that the people of Southampton expect at a reasonable cost. In a recession everyone has to tighten their belts and the public sector ought to be showing the way to do this, not lagging about 15 years behind the private sector![/p][/quote]There is no win win situation as the Council have to make cuts. It's either a pay cut or job losses. So will always be a lose lose. People forget SCC still have to spend money in Leisure and future investments etc. Staff pay has a budget, wether that means cuts or losses. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

1:49am Wed 23 Nov 11

From the Edge says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Poppy22 wrote:
Think both sides need to go on a negotiating course - the aim is to get a win-win situation, not a lose-lose! It's about time everyone - whether on staff or management - ignored what political party they support and just got on with providing the service that the people of Southampton expect at a reasonable cost. In a recession everyone has to tighten their belts and the public sector ought to be showing the way to do this, not lagging about 15 years behind the private sector!
There is no win win situation as the Council have to make cuts. It's either a pay cut or job losses. So will always be a lose lose.

People forget SCC still have to spend money in Leisure and future investments etc.

Staff pay has a budget, wether that means cuts or losses.
Royston knows full well that he will lose any court action, hence his insistence on the workforce not challenging him in court, he has sort Queens Counsel already, he been told he cannot win, the council has paid these Queens Counsel lawyers a million pounds from money borrowed and underwritten by us the council taxpayers.

Far from investing in leisure the council has under-invested for years, the running of leisure facilities has been outsourced for ages.

The folly of museums, the cultural quarter, the civic centre work, supplying pavements is being carried out using borrowed money again being underwritten by the council taxpayer.

The council's Change programme is all about privatising/outsourc
ing services, the Governments Localism Bill allows councils to offer contracts to voluntary sector (social enterprises and charities) to run these services, however the Change programme will be imposed before the Localism Bill, so social enterprises and charities will not be able to run these services, therefore allowing private companies to cherry pick the most profitable services leaving the other organisations the services will only be able to cover its costs, we all know private companies are the Tories friend.

This industrial action is the biggest con in council history, Royston is doing everything to keep it going so he can impose his will on the workforce.

I think it's about time Royston (as a public servant) started telling the truth and not filling us with spin
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: Think both sides need to go on a negotiating course - the aim is to get a win-win situation, not a lose-lose! It's about time everyone - whether on staff or management - ignored what political party they support and just got on with providing the service that the people of Southampton expect at a reasonable cost. In a recession everyone has to tighten their belts and the public sector ought to be showing the way to do this, not lagging about 15 years behind the private sector![/p][/quote]There is no win win situation as the Council have to make cuts. It's either a pay cut or job losses. So will always be a lose lose. People forget SCC still have to spend money in Leisure and future investments etc. Staff pay has a budget, wether that means cuts or losses.[/p][/quote]Royston knows full well that he will lose any court action, hence his insistence on the workforce not challenging him in court, he has sort Queens Counsel already, he been told he cannot win, the council has paid these Queens Counsel lawyers a million pounds from money borrowed and underwritten by us the council taxpayers. Far from investing in leisure the council has under-invested for years, the running of leisure facilities has been outsourced for ages. The folly of museums, the cultural quarter, the civic centre work, supplying pavements is being carried out using borrowed money again being underwritten by the council taxpayer. The council's Change programme is all about privatising/outsourc ing services, the Governments Localism Bill allows councils to offer contracts to voluntary sector (social enterprises and charities) to run these services, however the Change programme will be imposed before the Localism Bill, so social enterprises and charities will not be able to run these services, therefore allowing private companies to cherry pick the most profitable services leaving the other organisations the services will only be able to cover its costs, we all know private companies are the Tories friend. This industrial action is the biggest con in council history, Royston is doing everything to keep it going so he can impose his will on the workforce. I think it's about time Royston (as a public servant) started telling the truth and not filling us with spin From the Edge
  • Score: 0

7:25am Wed 23 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote:
According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote!
What does this tell us?
I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted.
Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed.

Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee.

It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that?
.
You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!!
.
Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not. Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

8:18am Wed 23 Nov 11

loosehead says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote:
According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote!
What does this tell us?
I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted.
Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed.

Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee.

It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that?
.
You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!!
.
Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?
Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:45am Wed 23 Nov 11

aldermoorboy says...

Will council workers ever work again? Strikes for pensions, strikes for pay, etc, etc.
We must out source as much as possible to the private sector then our high council taxes could fall.
Public employees must not expect the rest of us to pay for their pensions when many of us can't afford one.
Will council workers ever work again? Strikes for pensions, strikes for pay, etc, etc. We must out source as much as possible to the private sector then our high council taxes could fall. Public employees must not expect the rest of us to pay for their pensions when many of us can't afford one. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

10:03am Wed 23 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote:
According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote!
What does this tell us?
I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted.
Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed.

Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee.

It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that?
.
You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!!
.
Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?
Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
"Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?" Where did he say that then?
.
Again you show a strange understanding of how democracy works.
.
Only 30%-35% of the total electorate voted in Harefield in local elections over last 10 years. Is that fair?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]"Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?" Where did he say that then? . Again you show a strange understanding of how democracy works. . Only 30%-35% of the total electorate voted in Harefield in local elections over last 10 years. Is that fair? Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

10:05am Wed 23 Nov 11

freefinker says...

loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote:
According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote!
What does this tell us?
I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted.
Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed.

Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee.

It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that?
.
You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!!
.
Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?
Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008.

Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6%
Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6%
Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0%
Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7%
Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95%
Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7%
Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5%
Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0%
Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1%
Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9%
Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0%
Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5%
Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0%
Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9%

So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them.

I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008. freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:49am Wed 23 Nov 11

Scrutinizer says...

Well whatever you do UNISON, members, don't trust Mike Tucker. He'll only let you down as he did me and many others over the years.
Well whatever you do UNISON, members, don't trust Mike Tucker. He'll only let you down as he did me and many others over the years. Scrutinizer
  • Score: 0

10:49am Wed 23 Nov 11

Maine Lobster says...

freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.
Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up!
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.[/p][/quote]Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up! Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

11:23am Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.
Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up!
Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.[/p][/quote]Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up![/p][/quote]Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter. Shoong
  • Score: 0

11:23am Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.
Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up!
Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.[/p][/quote]Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up![/p][/quote]Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter. Shoong
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Wed 23 Nov 11

loosehead says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote:
According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote!
What does this tell us?
I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted.
Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed.

Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee.

It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that?
.
You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!!
.
Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?
Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
"Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?" Where did he say that then?
.
Again you show a strange understanding of how democracy works.
.
Only 30%-35% of the total electorate voted in Harefield in local elections over last 10 years. Is that fair?
Right I actually listened to that Di+khead on the BBC saying he would tell his members to reject it. You aren't very up with it are you? you don't know what your Leader ( labour) wants if he gets power. you don't know what c+ap Ian Woodland is sprouting on the BEEB what do you actually know?
Unite, urged its members to reject a proposal that could settle the bitter row over staff pay cuts brought in under threat of dismissal in July.
just one of the articles where Unite influenced the vote by it's members.
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]"Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?" Where did he say that then? . Again you show a strange understanding of how democracy works. . Only 30%-35% of the total electorate voted in Harefield in local elections over last 10 years. Is that fair?[/p][/quote]Right I actually listened to that Di+khead on the BBC saying he would tell his members to reject it. You aren't very up with it are you? you don't know what your Leader ( labour) wants if he gets power. you don't know what c+ap Ian Woodland is sprouting on the BEEB what do you actually know? Unite, urged its members to reject a proposal that could settle the bitter row over staff pay cuts brought in under threat of dismissal in July. just one of the articles where Unite influenced the vote by it's members. loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Wed 23 Nov 11

loosehead says...

freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote:
According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote!
What does this tell us?
I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted.
Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed.

Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee.

It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that?
.
You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!!
.
Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?
Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008.

Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6%
Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6%
Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0%
Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7%
Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95%
Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7%
Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5%
Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0%
Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1%
Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9%
Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0%
Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5%
Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0%
Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9%

So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them.

I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.
But the difference is we voted in a party to run the council & no one voted in this lot to tell us who we should vote for.
Or do you go blind when a letter from the unions to the Labour party states "we will do all in our power & with all means necessary get rid of the tory council & put in place a Labour council" how the hell is this democracy?
2,400 union members 350+ Unite 394 Unison for strikes ( against proposal) 384 Unison for proposal 57 Unite for proposal add the two no votes together & 744 people are telling 1,656 people they've got to strike hows that democracy? then add the other non union members & the figure is more like 4,056 people/workers who never voted for continuation of industrial action & makes the percentages a lot lower than the above figures.
those electorate who didn't vote at least had a choice to vote or not to vote.
if you don't agree with unions your forced into action( industrial) by a group of union members surely the whole workforce has voted when they signed their new contracts?
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.[/p][/quote]But the difference is we voted in a party to run the council & no one voted in this lot to tell us who we should vote for. Or do you go blind when a letter from the unions to the Labour party states "we will do all in our power & with all means necessary get rid of the tory council & put in place a Labour council" how the hell is this democracy? 2,400 union members 350+ Unite 394 Unison for strikes ( against proposal) 384 Unison for proposal 57 Unite for proposal add the two no votes together & 744 people are telling 1,656 people they've got to strike hows that democracy? then add the other non union members & the figure is more like 4,056 people/workers who never voted for continuation of industrial action & makes the percentages a lot lower than the above figures. those electorate who didn't vote at least had a choice to vote or not to vote. if you don't agree with unions your forced into action( industrial) by a group of union members surely the whole workforce has voted when they signed their new contracts? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Wed 23 Nov 11

aldermoorboy says...

I will be voting Tory at the next election to get value for money.
Thank you Royston for standing up to the Bullying Labour /Unions on behalf of us ordinary people.
Labour is for shirkers, Tories are for Workers
I will be voting Tory at the next election to get value for money. Thank you Royston for standing up to the Bullying Labour /Unions on behalf of us ordinary people. Labour is for shirkers, Tories are for Workers aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Maine Lobster says...

Shoong wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.
Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up!
Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter.
Pot, kettle........
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.[/p][/quote]Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up![/p][/quote]Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter.[/p][/quote]Pot, kettle........ Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Maine Lobster says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
I will be voting Tory at the next election to get value for money. Thank you Royston for standing up to the Bullying Labour /Unions on behalf of us ordinary people. Labour is for shirkers, Tories are for Workers
Taxi for aldermoorboy!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: I will be voting Tory at the next election to get value for money. Thank you Royston for standing up to the Bullying Labour /Unions on behalf of us ordinary people. Labour is for shirkers, Tories are for Workers[/p][/quote]Taxi for aldermoorboy! Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

Condor Man wrote:
Keep it going, the unions will find that a Labour council would sack 1,500 of their workers. Good luck finding new jobs in May.
Williams said he had been miss quoted, and yes he had been miss quoted, not about the 1,500 workers going, about how the 1,500 workers that will be going, unlike the Tory's who intend to get rid off most of them.
Oh you better say good-bye to your Tory Council they are gone in May. And any actions taken by the Torys now will be undone.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Keep it going, the unions will find that a Labour council would sack 1,500 of their workers. Good luck finding new jobs in May.[/p][/quote]Williams said he had been miss quoted, and yes he had been miss quoted, not about the 1,500 workers going, about how the 1,500 workers that will be going, unlike the Tory's who intend to get rid off most of them. Oh you better say good-bye to your Tory Council they are gone in May. And any actions taken by the Torys now will be undone. southy
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
I will be voting Tory at the next election to get value for money. Thank you Royston for standing up to the Bullying Labour /Unions on behalf of us ordinary people. Labour is for shirkers, Tories are for Workers
Taxi for aldermoorboy!
Sure you will be Moulton
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: I will be voting Tory at the next election to get value for money. Thank you Royston for standing up to the Bullying Labour /Unions on behalf of us ordinary people. Labour is for shirkers, Tories are for Workers[/p][/quote]Taxi for aldermoorboy![/p][/quote]Sure you will be Moulton southy
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys. southy
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;)

But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes...
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;) But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes... Shoong
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.
Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up!
Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter.
Pot, kettle........
It's ok, you can say 'black', I don't that word has been banned yet...
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.[/p][/quote]Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up![/p][/quote]Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter.[/p][/quote]Pot, kettle........[/p][/quote]It's ok, you can say 'black', I don't that word has been banned yet... Shoong
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote:
According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote!
What does this tell us?
I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted.
Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed.

Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee.

It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that?
.
You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!!
.
Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then?
Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
Loosehead you miss out part of the information.
How many Unions are there .
There could be 2,400 Unions members but there are more than 1 union. but it only effects 3 unions at the moment, Unite and Unsion which both have selected to refuse the offer.
Unite, voted 266 to 53
Unison, voted 389 to 340
Ucatt, has not release there figures for publication yet, but I am understood that they to have rejected the offer.
GMB has not voted yet nore has any the other Unions with in the City Council work force.
The 3 Unions that have voted on the issue, the Union Exc none have said to reject the offer, nore did they say accept the offer, they left wide open for the members to decide, what they did say how ever is repeated what the Councillors had said ie Royston Smith "this is the best and final offer"
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]Loosehead you miss out part of the information. How many Unions are there . There could be 2,400 Unions members but there are more than 1 union. but it only effects 3 unions at the moment, Unite and Unsion which both have selected to refuse the offer. Unite, voted 266 to 53 Unison, voted 389 to 340 Ucatt, has not release there figures for publication yet, but I am understood that they to have rejected the offer. GMB has not voted yet nore has any the other Unions with in the City Council work force. The 3 Unions that have voted on the issue, the Union Exc none have said to reject the offer, nore did they say accept the offer, they left wide open for the members to decide, what they did say how ever is repeated what the Councillors had said ie Royston Smith "this is the best and final offer" southy
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Wed 23 Nov 11

dockboy says...

The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.
The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out. dockboy
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

How many of you can remember Lord Nickolas Ridley and what he said when he was a MP Lord in the Tory Party under Thatcher in the 80's.

He stood up in the House of Commons and said.
All Councils should do is meet once a year to hand out public services dept to the private contractors.

And this is Royston Smith agenda and all ways have been, Fascism Federalism = Capitalism at its worse.

Royston wants the money and power that a council and MP job can offer, but he dont want to do the work it entails.
How many of you can remember Lord Nickolas Ridley and what he said when he was a MP Lord in the Tory Party under Thatcher in the 80's. He stood up in the House of Commons and said. All Councils should do is meet once a year to hand out public services dept to the private contractors. And this is Royston Smith agenda and all ways have been, Fascism Federalism = Capitalism at its worse. Royston wants the money and power that a council and MP job can offer, but he dont want to do the work it entails. southy
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

dockboy wrote:
The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.
Are you not confusing 'his will' with 'his budget'?

'If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.'

Translation: Give in completely. If he has any 'scruples' then the SCC must stick to their guns.

It always amuses me that people go at Royston, if you have a beef direct it at SCC, not just one man. Hence the word 'council'.
[quote][p][bold]dockboy[/bold] wrote: The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.[/p][/quote]Are you not confusing 'his will' with 'his budget'? 'If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.' Translation: Give in completely. If he has any 'scruples' then the SCC must stick to their guns. It always amuses me that people go at Royston, if you have a beef direct it at SCC, not just one man. Hence the word 'council'. Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
dockboy wrote:
The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.
Are you not confusing 'his will' with 'his budget'?

'If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.'

Translation: Give in completely. If he has any 'scruples' then the SCC must stick to their guns.

It always amuses me that people go at Royston, if you have a beef direct it at SCC, not just one man. Hence the word 'council'.
His will is his budget so no confusing there, they are one in a same.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dockboy[/bold] wrote: The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.[/p][/quote]Are you not confusing 'his will' with 'his budget'? 'If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.' Translation: Give in completely. If he has any 'scruples' then the SCC must stick to their guns. It always amuses me that people go at Royston, if you have a beef direct it at SCC, not just one man. Hence the word 'council'.[/p][/quote]His will is his budget so no confusing there, they are one in a same. southy
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
dockboy wrote:
The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.
Are you not confusing 'his will' with 'his budget'?

'If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.'

Translation: Give in completely. If he has any 'scruples' then the SCC must stick to their guns.

It always amuses me that people go at Royston, if you have a beef direct it at SCC, not just one man. Hence the word 'council'.
His will is his budget so no confusing there, they are one in a same.
That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it not backed by any evidence of a personal agenda.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dockboy[/bold] wrote: The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.[/p][/quote]Are you not confusing 'his will' with 'his budget'? 'If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.' Translation: Give in completely. If he has any 'scruples' then the SCC must stick to their guns. It always amuses me that people go at Royston, if you have a beef direct it at SCC, not just one man. Hence the word 'council'.[/p][/quote]His will is his budget so no confusing there, they are one in a same.[/p][/quote]That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it not backed by any evidence of a personal agenda. Shoong
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
dockboy wrote:
The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.
Are you not confusing 'his will' with 'his budget'?

'If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.'

Translation: Give in completely. If he has any 'scruples' then the SCC must stick to their guns.

It always amuses me that people go at Royston, if you have a beef direct it at SCC, not just one man. Hence the word 'council'.
His will is his budget so no confusing there, they are one in a same.
That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it not backed by any evidence of a personal agenda.
How many of you can remember Lord Nickolas Ridley and what he said when he was a MP Lord in the Tory Party under Thatcher in the 80's.

He stood up in the House of Commons and said.
All Councils should do is meet once a year to hand out public services dept to the private contractors.

And this is Royston Smith agenda and all ways have been, Fascism Federalism = Capitalism at its worse.

Royston wants the money and power that a council and MP job can offer, but he dont want to do the work it entails.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dockboy[/bold] wrote: The fact remains that whether Royston Smith believed he was doing the right thing or not in trying to enforce his will on the workers , he has failed completely. He has shown total disregard for the concerns of those employed by the council, he has failed to bring this dispute to an end, with the only sufferers being Southampton employees and Southampton residents. If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.[/p][/quote]Are you not confusing 'his will' with 'his budget'? 'If this man has any scruples or decency he would admit his failings, resign immediately giving someone else a chance to sort this whole sorry mess out.' Translation: Give in completely. If he has any 'scruples' then the SCC must stick to their guns. It always amuses me that people go at Royston, if you have a beef direct it at SCC, not just one man. Hence the word 'council'.[/p][/quote]His will is his budget so no confusing there, they are one in a same.[/p][/quote]That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it not backed by any evidence of a personal agenda.[/p][/quote]How many of you can remember Lord Nickolas Ridley and what he said when he was a MP Lord in the Tory Party under Thatcher in the 80's. He stood up in the House of Commons and said. All Councils should do is meet once a year to hand out public services dept to the private contractors. And this is Royston Smith agenda and all ways have been, Fascism Federalism = Capitalism at its worse. Royston wants the money and power that a council and MP job can offer, but he dont want to do the work it entails. southy
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Wed 23 Nov 11

loosehead says...

Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Loosehead
I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members.

All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?[/p][/quote]Loosehead I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO. He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members. All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer. southy
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work
.
You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right
.
If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work . You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right . If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;)

But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes...
Come on, I want to know your thoughts on the start of 'Global Socialist Revolution' that has had a somewhat faltering start in Spain.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;) But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes...[/p][/quote]Come on, I want to know your thoughts on the start of 'Global Socialist Revolution' that has had a somewhat faltering start in Spain. Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Maine Lobster says...

Shoong wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
TEBOURBA wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?
This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.
Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.
Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?
OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.
Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up!
Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter.
Pot, kettle........
It's ok, you can say 'black', I don't that word has been banned yet...
LOL! Don't see eye to eye with you on much, but that was funny, even for a Tory!
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote: According to the Echo fewer than half the Union members eligible to vote bothered to vote! What does this tell us? I should have thought that people really worried about their future would have turned out, 100% to the last man, to have their views counted. Again I ask, what does this apparent apathy tell us?[/p][/quote]This is where the Law needs to be changed. Whilst some may argue the Government are voted in this way, the public don't voluntarily pay a subscription fee. It should be a % of fee payers who have volunteered to pay this fee.[/p][/quote]Fee payers? Whats that? . You seem to choose a democracy that suits you. If you dont like the result you change the law. Nice!! . Every member received a ballot form in the post. It is down to individual choice if you vote or not.[/p][/quote]Really? so Ian Woodland telling the Unite membership to vote no didn't happen then? Exactly how many union members are there? 2,400? so why only 1,000 voted in which just over 420 voted for the proposal leaving about 600 for it not even half the members voted against the proposal how can this be a vote for continuation of industrial action?[/p][/quote]OK, let’s look at the Tory ‘victories’ in their electoral landslide of 2008. Bargate 912 votes electorate 13739 = 6.6% Bassett 2103/11284 = 18.6% Bitterne 1494/9966 = 15.0% Bitterne Park 1933/10330 = 18.7% Coxford 1018/10278 = 9.95% Freemantle 1580/10768 = 14.7% Harefield 2051/10537 = 19.5% Millbrook 1527/10928 = 14.0% Peartree 1334/10200 = 13.1% Portswood 1273/10690 = 11.9% Redbridge 1251/10398 = 12.0% Shirley 1922/10373 = 18.5% Sholing 2022/10641 = 19.0% Swaythling 1040/9514 = 10.9% So, not one of the successful Tory candidates got even 20% of the electorate to vote for them. I think you will find the respective Trade Union votes had both a better turn out and a bigger percentage in favour of non-acceptance than the dismal ‘mandate’ given to the Tories in 2008.[/p][/quote]Well done freefinker. I hope all these minority mandate moaners now crawl back into their bunkers and shut up![/p][/quote]Yes, curse them for having an opinion on the matter.[/p][/quote]Pot, kettle........[/p][/quote]It's ok, you can say 'black', I don't that word has been banned yet...[/p][/quote]LOL! Don't see eye to eye with you on much, but that was funny, even for a Tory! Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work
.
You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right
.
If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.
I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going.
And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.
Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector.
Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work . You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right . If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.[/p][/quote]I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going. And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control. Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector. Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree. southy
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.'

Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.
'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.' Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now. Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work
.
You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right
.
If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.
I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going.
And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.
Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector.
Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree.
'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.'

Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.'
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work . You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right . If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.[/p][/quote]I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going. And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control. Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector. Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree.[/p][/quote]'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.' Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.' Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work
.
You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right
.
If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.
I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going.
And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.
Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector.
Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree.
'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.'

Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.'
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work . You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right . If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.[/p][/quote]I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going. And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control. Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector. Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree.[/p][/quote]'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.' Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.' Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;)

But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes...
Come on, I want to know your thoughts on the start of 'Global Socialist Revolution' that has had a somewhat faltering start in Spain.
In spain the turn out was low, Spain like the uk has not seen any Socialist in power for 30 years, all they have had is one form of capitalism v another form of capitalism just like the Uk.
Its far from over in Spain come the spring and they will be back on the streets, just like they have been in other places, it did not work in greece or in Italy. replacing one Capitalist for another Capitalist don't work, you might fool the people for a little while but sooner or later they do catch on.

Its like Southampton Tory Council the mirror image is Basinstoke Labour Council they are one in the same a Capitalist Council with no social agenda.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;) But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes...[/p][/quote]Come on, I want to know your thoughts on the start of 'Global Socialist Revolution' that has had a somewhat faltering start in Spain.[/p][/quote]In spain the turn out was low, Spain like the uk has not seen any Socialist in power for 30 years, all they have had is one form of capitalism v another form of capitalism just like the Uk. Its far from over in Spain come the spring and they will be back on the streets, just like they have been in other places, it did not work in greece or in Italy. replacing one Capitalist for another Capitalist don't work, you might fool the people for a little while but sooner or later they do catch on. Its like Southampton Tory Council the mirror image is Basinstoke Labour Council they are one in the same a Capitalist Council with no social agenda. southy
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Wed 23 Nov 11

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;)

But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes...
Come on, I want to know your thoughts on the start of 'Global Socialist Revolution' that has had a somewhat faltering start in Spain.
In spain the turn out was low, Spain like the uk has not seen any Socialist in power for 30 years, all they have had is one form of capitalism v another form of capitalism just like the Uk.
Its far from over in Spain come the spring and they will be back on the streets, just like they have been in other places, it did not work in greece or in Italy. replacing one Capitalist for another Capitalist don't work, you might fool the people for a little while but sooner or later they do catch on.

Its like Southampton Tory Council the mirror image is Basinstoke Labour Council they are one in the same a Capitalist Council with no social agenda.
Utterly deluded!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;) But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes...[/p][/quote]Come on, I want to know your thoughts on the start of 'Global Socialist Revolution' that has had a somewhat faltering start in Spain.[/p][/quote]In spain the turn out was low, Spain like the uk has not seen any Socialist in power for 30 years, all they have had is one form of capitalism v another form of capitalism just like the Uk. Its far from over in Spain come the spring and they will be back on the streets, just like they have been in other places, it did not work in greece or in Italy. replacing one Capitalist for another Capitalist don't work, you might fool the people for a little while but sooner or later they do catch on. Its like Southampton Tory Council the mirror image is Basinstoke Labour Council they are one in the same a Capitalist Council with no social agenda.[/p][/quote]Utterly deluded! Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work
.
You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right
.
If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.
I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going.
And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.
Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector.
Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree.
'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.'

Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.'
Shoong I not the only one seeing that the signs are there, its even been quoted by Tory branch membership. We are heading for a depression and at every depression there has been a major war.
I personally forcasting a depression in 2 years time, others are predicting less time others in a bit longer than 2 years.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work . You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right . If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.[/p][/quote]I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going. And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control. Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector. Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree.[/p][/quote]'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.' Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.'[/p][/quote]Shoong I not the only one seeing that the signs are there, its even been quoted by Tory branch membership. We are heading for a depression and at every depression there has been a major war. I personally forcasting a depression in 2 years time, others are predicting less time others in a bit longer than 2 years. southy
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work
.
You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right
.
If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.
I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going.
And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.
Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector.
Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree.
'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.'

Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.'
Shoong said.
"Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.'"

And that what some people said about others who was saying we are heading towards a major war back in the late 1920's and early 1930's, and look where that ended up WWII.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]Southy, when will you realise that any job destroyed whether by sacking people or not replacing when the worker leaves or retires, is in reality lost opportunity for somebody else looking for work . You may have your heart in the right place but please try to engage your head, and stop coming across as a socialist trying to be apologist for Cllr.Williams, the closet Tory whom even some members of his own NuLabour do not like because politically he is so much on the right . If you are going to be a TUSC candidate, I suggest you start practising what TUSC preaches. It is opposed to ALL cuts, regardless of the methods and whoever makes those cuts, whether it is done by small guy Smith or tall man Williams makes no difference.[/p][/quote]I know a job lost is a job lost and gone, but i was trying to point out the difference and yes Williams and Smith are as bad has one another. And both don't care about employment and both will ignore the fact that the more unemployed there is less money will be spent in the local economy, creating more unemployment its a cycle that once in can only end in one of two ways. and the knock on effect of less money in the local economy will mean less money spent in the national economy creating more job loses and that effects the world economy with less money being spent resulting in more job loses. and it don't matter which way you do it the results are the same, and the only answer is to keep all jobs going. And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control. Williams and smithy job loses are the same in numbers, but smithy wants to get rid of what he can by sacking or passing the buck on to the private sector who will employ the little has they can, Williams wants to lose what he can before sacking or making people redundant and handing over to the private sector. Remember me saying what the Economy was like, its like a tree, you can cut back the branches, and the tree will carry on living, or do what the capitalist will do and that is cut the roots and kill the tree.[/p][/quote]'And the only 2 ways out of it is a people revolution, or what the Capitalist are aiming for a WWIII to cull the population so they can maintain control.' Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.'[/p][/quote]Shoong said. "Ok, even I'm getting seriously worried about you now.'" And that what some people said about others who was saying we are heading towards a major war back in the late 1920's and early 1930's, and look where that ended up WWII. southy
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!!
If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.
Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.
You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;)

But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes...
Come on, I want to know your thoughts on the start of 'Global Socialist Revolution' that has had a somewhat faltering start in Spain.
In spain the turn out was low, Spain like the uk has not seen any Socialist in power for 30 years, all they have had is one form of capitalism v another form of capitalism just like the Uk.
Its far from over in Spain come the spring and they will be back on the streets, just like they have been in other places, it did not work in greece or in Italy. replacing one Capitalist for another Capitalist don't work, you might fool the people for a little while but sooner or later they do catch on.

Its like Southampton Tory Council the mirror image is Basinstoke Labour Council they are one in the same a Capitalist Council with no social agenda.
Oh by the way I forgot I was saying 2 years ago on this site what Spain has in government is not a Socialist Government but its a mild form right wing capialism just like our Labour party.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: Royston WILL sack 1500!!! He will because if you read into the 'commissioning' model he proposes you will work out that by squeezing the contracts by 27% he will force the contractors to cut thus keeping his hands clean for the next election!![/p][/quote]If staff are TUPE'd to work for another firm please explain how 1,500 will be sacked? Richard Williams said that 1,500 staff would have to go, start looking into what Labour are proposing before you sound off.[/p][/quote]Williams said 1,500 jobs would go is right but what was missed out was how those 1,500 jobs would go, most will be done by not replacing people when they leave or retire, Royston wants to get rid off them by sacking if he can, and not pay out in redundantcys.[/p][/quote]You must be delighted with the Socialist revolution in Spain... ;) But what am I talking about? They are only Socialists when they are in power, stuffing up the economy & suddenly become right wing when they are kicked out on their arzes...[/p][/quote]Come on, I want to know your thoughts on the start of 'Global Socialist Revolution' that has had a somewhat faltering start in Spain.[/p][/quote]In spain the turn out was low, Spain like the uk has not seen any Socialist in power for 30 years, all they have had is one form of capitalism v another form of capitalism just like the Uk. Its far from over in Spain come the spring and they will be back on the streets, just like they have been in other places, it did not work in greece or in Italy. replacing one Capitalist for another Capitalist don't work, you might fool the people for a little while but sooner or later they do catch on. Its like Southampton Tory Council the mirror image is Basinstoke Labour Council they are one in the same a Capitalist Council with no social agenda.[/p][/quote]Oh by the way I forgot I was saying 2 years ago on this site what Spain has in government is not a Socialist Government but its a mild form right wing capialism just like our Labour party. southy
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.
Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.
Should have said Winchester!!!
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.[/p][/quote]Should have said Winchester!!! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.
Should have said Winchester!!!
Another council who intends to implement Lord N Ridley commons speech from the Thatcher years in power.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.[/p][/quote]Should have said Winchester!!![/p][/quote]Another council who intends to implement Lord N Ridley commons speech from the Thatcher years in power. southy
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.
Should have said Winchester!!!
This is quite worrying if we contract out in Southampton as our HGV2 drivers are on 6K more?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.[/p][/quote]Should have said Winchester!!![/p][/quote]This is quite worrying if we contract out in Southampton as our HGV2 drivers are on 6K more? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.
Should have said Winchester!!!
Another council who intends to implement Lord N Ridley commons speech from the Thatcher years in power.
Your obsession with thatcher is too much. Do you fancy her? I'll get very jealous ;-)
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.[/p][/quote]Should have said Winchester!!![/p][/quote]Another council who intends to implement Lord N Ridley commons speech from the Thatcher years in power.[/p][/quote]Your obsession with thatcher is too much. Do you fancy her? I'll get very jealous ;-) IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Wed 23 Nov 11

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.
Should have said Winchester!!!
Another council who intends to implement Lord N Ridley commons speech from the Thatcher years in power.
Your obsession with thatcher is too much. Do you fancy her? I'll get very jealous ;-)
Well that was the era when our real problems started, Thatcher herself was a millioniare before coming PM. She was all ways out of touch with the common person and never knew what it was like to have nothing, she lied to people to buy into, what would she know about manergering purse strings when she has never been short of cash.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.[/p][/quote]Should have said Winchester!!![/p][/quote]Another council who intends to implement Lord N Ridley commons speech from the Thatcher years in power.[/p][/quote]Your obsession with thatcher is too much. Do you fancy her? I'll get very jealous ;-)[/p][/quote]Well that was the era when our real problems started, Thatcher herself was a millioniare before coming PM. She was all ways out of touch with the common person and never knew what it was like to have nothing, she lied to people to buy into, what would she know about manergering purse strings when she has never been short of cash. southy
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Wed 23 Nov 11

freefinker says...

captain-chaos wrote:
Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report:
SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance.

Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt.

But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured.

Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence.

He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation".

But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.
.. are you going to comment then?
.. or just repeat the article?
[quote][p][bold]captain-chaos[/bold] wrote: Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report: SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance. Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt. But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured. Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence. He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation". But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.[/p][/quote].. are you going to comment then? .. or just repeat the article? freefinker
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Wed 23 Nov 11

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.
Should have said Winchester!!!
Another council who intends to implement Lord N Ridley commons speech from the Thatcher years in power.
.. suggest you get your time lines and constitutional knowledge in order.

You can't be a Lord in the Commons.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Biffa are recruiting HGV 2 DRIVER/LOADER x10 at £8.50 an hour which based on 37.5 hours a week (average) is £16,575 to work on the new Council contract.[/p][/quote]Should have said Winchester!!![/p][/quote]Another council who intends to implement Lord N Ridley commons speech from the Thatcher years in power.[/p][/quote].. suggest you get your time lines and constitutional knowledge in order. You can't be a Lord in the Commons. freefinker
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

freefinker wrote:
captain-chaos wrote:
Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report:
SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance.

Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt.

But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured.

Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence.

He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation".

But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.
.. are you going to comment then?
.. or just repeat the article?
So Royston is human afterall. He made a mistake and is paying for it. Glad he is accepting his punishment like everyone else.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]captain-chaos[/bold] wrote: Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report: SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance. Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt. But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured. Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence. He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation". But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.[/p][/quote].. are you going to comment then? .. or just repeat the article?[/p][/quote]So Royston is human afterall. He made a mistake and is paying for it. Glad he is accepting his punishment like everyone else. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Wed 23 Nov 11

freefinker says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
freefinker wrote:
captain-chaos wrote:
Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report:
SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance.

Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt.

But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured.

Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence.

He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation".

But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.
.. are you going to comment then?
.. or just repeat the article?
So Royston is human afterall. He made a mistake and is paying for it. Glad he is accepting his punishment like everyone else.
.. "accepting"?
Did he have a choice?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]captain-chaos[/bold] wrote: Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report: SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance. Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt. But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured. Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence. He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation". But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.[/p][/quote].. are you going to comment then? .. or just repeat the article?[/p][/quote]So Royston is human afterall. He made a mistake and is paying for it. Glad he is accepting his punishment like everyone else.[/p][/quote].. "accepting"? Did he have a choice? freefinker
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

captain-chaos wrote:
Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report:
SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance.

Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt.

But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured.

Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence.

He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation".

But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.
You missed this copy and paste...............


He could not explain why he was not wearing a seat belt and said it was a "one-off".

He added: "This in itself would be bad enough but the catalogue of events that followed have put me in an embarrassing position."

He said he let his insurance policy automatically renew earlier this month as he does every year.

But the company then emailed him because the payment with American Express needed to be manually authorised.

But Mr Smith said because he had changed his internet provider he did not receive the email.

"The company presumably sent an email to the former BT address but I didn't receive it, so thought the payment and renewal had taken place automatically as usual," he added.

"I will be talking to the insurance company and taking legal advice because I now have points added to a clean licence and a fine."
[quote][p][bold]captain-chaos[/bold] wrote: Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report: SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance. Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt. But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured. Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence. He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation". But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.[/p][/quote]You missed this copy and paste............... He could not explain why he was not wearing a seat belt and said it was a "one-off". He added: "This in itself would be bad enough but the catalogue of events that followed have put me in an embarrassing position." He said he let his insurance policy automatically renew earlier this month as he does every year. But the company then emailed him because the payment with American Express needed to be manually authorised. But Mr Smith said because he had changed his internet provider he did not receive the email. "The company presumably sent an email to the former BT address but I didn't receive it, so thought the payment and renewal had taken place automatically as usual," he added. "I will be talking to the insurance company and taking legal advice because I now have points added to a clean licence and a fine." IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
captain-chaos wrote:
Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report:
SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance.

Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt.

But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured.

Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence.

He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation".

But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.
You missed this copy and paste...............



He could not explain why he was not wearing a seat belt and said it was a "one-off".

He added: "This in itself would be bad enough but the catalogue of events that followed have put me in an embarrassing position."

He said he let his insurance policy automatically renew earlier this month as he does every year.

But the company then emailed him because the payment with American Express needed to be manually authorised.

But Mr Smith said because he had changed his internet provider he did not receive the email.

"The company presumably sent an email to the former BT address but I didn't receive it, so thought the payment and renewal had taken place automatically as usual," he added.

"I will be talking to the insurance company and taking legal advice because I now have points added to a clean licence and a fine."
As always, The Echo give us half a story!!
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]captain-chaos[/bold] wrote: Maybe we can comment on this issue here as the Echo didn't give a option in the original report: SOUTHAMPTON'S council leader has been fined by police for driving without insurance. Cllr Royston Smith was pulled over by a traffic officer as he drove through the city for not wearing a seatbelt. But a check revealed his Jaguar was uninsured. Cllr Smith accepted a £60 fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt offence and another for £200 for driving without insurance together with six penalty points to be added to his otherwise clean driving licence. He later said an oversight had left him in an "embarrassing situation". But to add to the top Tory's woes, his humiliating predicament was caught on camera by a passing council worker.[/p][/quote]You missed this copy and paste............... He could not explain why he was not wearing a seat belt and said it was a "one-off". He added: "This in itself would be bad enough but the catalogue of events that followed have put me in an embarrassing position." He said he let his insurance policy automatically renew earlier this month as he does every year. But the company then emailed him because the payment with American Express needed to be manually authorised. But Mr Smith said because he had changed his internet provider he did not receive the email. "The company presumably sent an email to the former BT address but I didn't receive it, so thought the payment and renewal had taken place automatically as usual," he added. "I will be talking to the insurance company and taking legal advice because I now have points added to a clean licence and a fine."[/p][/quote]As always, The Echo give us half a story!! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Wed 23 Nov 11

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Loosehead
I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members.

All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.
Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?[/p][/quote]Loosehead I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO. He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members. All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.[/p][/quote]Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Wed 23 Nov 11

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Loosehead
I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members.

All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.
So southy what's this then?
Unite regional officer Ian Woodland also said it would go to a vote but has recommended its members reject the proposal.
So would recommend reject isn't that the same as NO?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?[/p][/quote]Loosehead I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO. He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members. All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.[/p][/quote]So southy what's this then? Unite regional officer Ian Woodland also said it would go to a vote but has recommended its members reject the proposal. So would recommend reject isn't that the same as NO? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:29pm Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Loosehead
I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members.

All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.
Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right
http://www.wsws.org/
articles/2011/nov201
1/sout-n08.shtml

An interesting opinion, follow the links too.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?[/p][/quote]Loosehead I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO. He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members. All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.[/p][/quote]Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right[/p][/quote]http://www.wsws.org/ articles/2011/nov201 1/sout-n08.shtml An interesting opinion, follow the links too. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Wed 23 Nov 11

loosehead says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Loosehead
I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members.

All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.
Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right
http://www.wsws.org/

articles/2011/nov201

1/sout-n08.shtml

An interesting opinion, follow the links too.
Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article?
I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider.
About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?[/p][/quote]Loosehead I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO. He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members. All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.[/p][/quote]Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right[/p][/quote]http://www.wsws.org/ articles/2011/nov201 1/sout-n08.shtml An interesting opinion, follow the links too.[/p][/quote]Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article? I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider. About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Wed 23 Nov 11

IronLady2010 says...

loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Loosehead
I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members.

All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.
Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right
http://www.wsws.org/


articles/2011/nov201


1/sout-n08.shtml

An interesting opinion, follow the links too.
Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article?
I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider.
About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote
Seems it was Woodland pretending to be a bin man on here, you know the one who called fellow workers scabs??

No wonder that member went quiet when you read my link above and follow the links within.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?[/p][/quote]Loosehead I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO. He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members. All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.[/p][/quote]Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right[/p][/quote]http://www.wsws.org/ articles/2011/nov201 1/sout-n08.shtml An interesting opinion, follow the links too.[/p][/quote]Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article? I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider. About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote[/p][/quote]Seems it was Woodland pretending to be a bin man on here, you know the one who called fellow workers scabs?? No wonder that member went quiet when you read my link above and follow the links within. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:11am Thu 24 Nov 11

OSPREYSAINT says...

loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Loosehead
I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members.

All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.
Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right
http://www.wsws.org/


articles/2011/nov201


1/sout-n08.shtml

An interesting opinion, follow the links too.
Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article?
I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider.
About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote
LH careful with idiots comment, they may only be that in your opinion. Do you drive without belting up? Is your car insurance up to scratch, if not then maybe you are the idiot, methinks.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?[/p][/quote]Loosehead I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO. He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members. All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.[/p][/quote]Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right[/p][/quote]http://www.wsws.org/ articles/2011/nov201 1/sout-n08.shtml An interesting opinion, follow the links too.[/p][/quote]Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article? I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider. About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote[/p][/quote]LH careful with idiots comment, they may only be that in your opinion. Do you drive without belting up? Is your car insurance up to scratch, if not then maybe you are the idiot, methinks. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Sun 27 Nov 11

Ant Smoking MP says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Loosehead
I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members.

All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.
Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right
http://www.wsws.org/



articles/2011/nov201



1/sout-n08.shtml

An interesting opinion, follow the links too.
Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article?
I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider.
About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote
Seems it was Woodland pretending to be a bin man on here, you know the one who called fellow workers scabs??

No wonder that member went quiet when you read my link above and follow the links within.
I am intrigued. Who here was Ian Woodland?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?[/p][/quote]Loosehead I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO. He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members. All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.[/p][/quote]Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right[/p][/quote]http://www.wsws.org/ articles/2011/nov201 1/sout-n08.shtml An interesting opinion, follow the links too.[/p][/quote]Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article? I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider. About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote[/p][/quote]Seems it was Woodland pretending to be a bin man on here, you know the one who called fellow workers scabs?? No wonder that member went quiet when you read my link above and follow the links within.[/p][/quote]I am intrigued. Who here was Ian Woodland? Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Sun 27 Nov 11

loosehead says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?
Loosehead
I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members.

All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.
Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right
http://www.wsws.org/



articles/2011/nov201



1/sout-n08.shtml

An interesting opinion, follow the links too.
Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article?
I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider.
About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote
LH careful with idiots comment, they may only be that in your opinion. Do you drive without belting up? Is your car insurance up to scratch, if not then maybe you are the idiot, methinks.
Osprey my insurance & Road tax are up to date I also have a full car & motorbike licence. the ones I want hit are the ones who haven't got a driving licence & have no intention of getting one. Would never think of getting insurance never tax a vehicle buy an old vehicle with no intention of registering it in their name & happily drive around or the ones smoking whacky backy whilst driving or drunk driving any of these categories .
If Royston or any other person fell into these groups then I would quite happily say throw away the key after you've locked them up.
But according to the above article Royston said it was a mistake & the police accepted it fined him he's paid the fine .
Isn't the saying do the crime do the time the same as pay the fine.
There's far worse crimes happening than this he might be taken for shooting himself in the foot but all this venom aimed at him & people who aren't out to hang him has gone to far.
I hope you watched the politics show & saw the unions attitude towards talks?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy will you admit that Ian woodland said he would ask his members for a no vote?[/p][/quote]Loosehead I know for a fact that Ian Woodland DID NOT ASK HIS MEMBERS TO VOTE NO. He did not tell his members to say No or Yes to the union members. All he said to his members was that this was the council final and best offer.[/p][/quote]Southy he said it on the BBC so please get your facts right[/p][/quote]http://www.wsws.org/ articles/2011/nov201 1/sout-n08.shtml An interesting opinion, follow the links too.[/p][/quote]Ironlady these idiots are even bringing up Royston on the Rose Bowl article? I thought I had my insurance docs went to get road tax & the docs I had were no good.phoned up my insurers they said I would have to pay for a schedule but it was only weeks until my new year & i'd get one for free. I paid my tax over the phone & insisted I had an insurance schedule just in case. I also have just changed e-mail provider & even after notifying every one they still went to my old provider. About Ian Woodland I don't know where these people get their information from but he quite clearly said he would recommend a no vote & since then he has shouted about privatisation before the vote[/p][/quote]LH careful with idiots comment, they may only be that in your opinion. Do you drive without belting up? Is your car insurance up to scratch, if not then maybe you are the idiot, methinks.[/p][/quote]Osprey my insurance & Road tax are up to date I also have a full car & motorbike licence. the ones I want hit are the ones who haven't got a driving licence & have no intention of getting one. Would never think of getting insurance never tax a vehicle buy an old vehicle with no intention of registering it in their name & happily drive around or the ones smoking whacky backy whilst driving or drunk driving any of these categories . If Royston or any other person fell into these groups then I would quite happily say throw away the key after you've locked them up. But according to the above article Royston said it was a mistake & the police accepted it fined him he's paid the fine . Isn't the saying do the crime do the time the same as pay the fine. There's far worse crimes happening than this he might be taken for shooting himself in the foot but all this venom aimed at him & people who aren't out to hang him has gone to far. I hope you watched the politics show & saw the unions attitude towards talks? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Sun 27 Nov 11

loosehead says...

Osprey my insurance & Road tax are up to date I also have a full car & motorbike licence. the ones I want hit are the ones who haven't got a driving licence & have no intention of getting one. Would never think of getting insurance never tax a vehicle buy an old vehicle with no intention of registering it in their name & happily drive around or the ones smoking whacky backy whilst driving or drunk driving any of these categories .
If Royston or any other person fell into these groups then I would quite happily say throw away the key after you've locked them up.
But according to the above article Royston said it was a mistake & the police accepted it fined him he's paid the fine .
Isn't the saying do the crime do the time the same as pay the fine.
There's far worse crimes happening than this he might be taken for shooting himself in the foot but all this venom aimed at him & people who aren't out to hang him has gone to far.
I hope you watched the politics show & saw the unions attitude towards talks?
Osprey my insurance & Road tax are up to date I also have a full car & motorbike licence. the ones I want hit are the ones who haven't got a driving licence & have no intention of getting one. Would never think of getting insurance never tax a vehicle buy an old vehicle with no intention of registering it in their name & happily drive around or the ones smoking whacky backy whilst driving or drunk driving any of these categories . If Royston or any other person fell into these groups then I would quite happily say throw away the key after you've locked them up. But according to the above article Royston said it was a mistake & the police accepted it fined him he's paid the fine . Isn't the saying do the crime do the time the same as pay the fine. There's far worse crimes happening than this he might be taken for shooting himself in the foot but all this venom aimed at him & people who aren't out to hang him has gone to far. I hope you watched the politics show & saw the unions attitude towards talks? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Sun 27 Nov 11

uniboy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Here we go again..... Yet another opportunity for everyone to bash Royston and the Unions.

BORED NOW!!

I just wish a solution could be found wether it be Union members accepting a small cut or Royston just sacking an extra few hundred as Labour suggested.

Just sort it out!!
lets sack Royston he has committed a criminal offence fancy having that type of person in charge of our council two faced
Tory and don't all you conservatives get on your high horse you would not support him if he had run you over would you?and if it was a labour councillor im sure you all would like his/her head on a block
and a good manager would ask his employees how could you save this firm money and still maintain a service have not heard any of them ask this question also how can he threaten 400 redundant then take on 18 extra bin men full time does he think we are all stupid ? i think yes
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Here we go again..... Yet another opportunity for everyone to bash Royston and the Unions. BORED NOW!! I just wish a solution could be found wether it be Union members accepting a small cut or Royston just sacking an extra few hundred as Labour suggested. Just sort it out!![/p][/quote]lets sack Royston he has committed a criminal offence fancy having that type of person in charge of our council two faced Tory and don't all you conservatives get on your high horse you would not support him if he had run you over would you?and if it was a labour councillor im sure you all would like his/her head on a block and a good manager would ask his employees how could you save this firm money and still maintain a service have not heard any of them ask this question also how can he threaten 400 redundant then take on 18 extra bin men full time does he think we are all stupid ? i think yes uniboy
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Sun 27 Nov 11

uniboy says...

lets sack Royston he has committed a criminal offence fancy having that type of person in charge of our council two faced
Tory and don't all you conservatives get on your high horse you would not support him if he had run you over would you?and if it was a labour councillor im sure you all would like his/her head on a block
and a good manager would ask his employees how could you save this firm money and still maintain a service have not heard any of them ask this question also how can he threaten 400 redundant then take on 18 extra bin men full time does he think we are all stupid ? i think yes
lets sack Royston he has committed a criminal offence fancy having that type of person in charge of our council two faced Tory and don't all you conservatives get on your high horse you would not support him if he had run you over would you?and if it was a labour councillor im sure you all would like his/her head on a block and a good manager would ask his employees how could you save this firm money and still maintain a service have not heard any of them ask this question also how can he threaten 400 redundant then take on 18 extra bin men full time does he think we are all stupid ? i think yes uniboy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree