Tories accused of plot to make it cheaper to sack workers (From Daily Echo)

RichardCoughlan wrote:
I don't usually agree with Royston's crewe, but on this issue I feel I must. If greedy b******s like Brown and Murphy want to rip off their employers, let it not be at the expense of tax payers. A cap of £30,000 on redundancy pay-outs is fair, still generous to lower paid workers and compairs well with the best in the private sector. High earners do not need financial safety nets. When they loose their jobs they are extremely unlikely to end up homeless and hungry.

RichardCoughlan wrote:
I don't usually agree with Royston's crewe, but on this issue I feel I must. If greedy b******s like Brown and Murphy want to rip off their employers, let it not be at the expense of tax payers. A cap of £30,000 on redundancy pay-outs is fair, still generous to lower paid workers and compairs well with the best in the private sector. High earners do not need financial safety nets. When they loose their jobs they are extremely unlikely to end up homeless and hungry.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
This news is perfect rotten egg in the face of those hypocrites who on this site religiously keep on supporting Royston Smith and his colleagues . Some of them will moan a little bit, like Clegg has done over bankers, but when will ever they put their money where their mouths are. If there is election tomorrow they still be arguing in favour of the same right wing mob.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
When democracy operates like ‘Yes Minister’ why should anybody be surprised that ‘Fat Cats’, whose advice our so called elected representatives tend to depend upon, safeguard their own interests
.
Fat cats often suggest how the so called councillors should be slave driving the ordinary workers, sadly the councillors seem to lack sense, especially when they also happen to be followers of that woman Thatcher
.
So upper classes get looked after and middle class and workers get shafted
.
Osborne has done it nationally and Smith’s silly lot are doing it in Southampton
.
But then ask yourself who voted for them? We the people
.
Should we also not take responsibility for keep on trusting the same three main parties, which in reality are virtually the same?

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Double standards again by SCC.
.
And i thought we were all in this together.
.
You just cant believe a word that comes out of this lousy local council.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Double standards again by SCC.
.
And i thought we were all in this together.
.
You just cant believe a word that comes out of this lousy local council.

"And i thought we were all in this together."
.
Surely you did not believe them, did you?
.
It is them, the vultures, in it together against us the ordinary people, who have to pay the price for many not thinking properly before voting.

The Wickham Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
When democracy operates like ‘Yes Minister’ why should anybody be surprised that ‘Fat Cats’, whose advice our so called elected representatives tend to depend upon, safeguard their own interests
.
Fat cats often suggest how the so called councillors should be slave driving the ordinary workers, sadly the councillors seem to lack sense, especially when they also happen to be followers of that woman Thatcher
.
So upper classes get looked after and middle class and workers get shafted
.
Osborne has done it nationally and Smith’s silly lot are doing it in Southampton
.
But then ask yourself who voted for them? We the people
.
Should we also not take responsibility for keep on trusting the same three main parties, which in reality are virtually the same?

What is it with you? You write the most supid unsubstantiated bigotted class-hating misguided garbage on here time after time - you make yourself look foolish trying to blame everything in the world onto someone who hasn't even been in power for 20 years. I explained that this current problem arose long since Thatcher was around and it was a policy that seemed reasonable at the time - oh yes and it was under a labour government, stupid. It is to do with the contracts that were used to incentivise average calibre managers into the public sector using gold plated guarantees that now look massively out of place. Redundant managers cannot be sacked without their pensions being paid up. Even in your warped imaginations Does the woman in the picture look like a "toff" living in a "mansion" riding to hounds and dining at the palace? Do you imagine that in interviews she was asked who she voited for with only a tory getting a tick in the box? The public sector interviewing process is so carefully screened as to be totally impossible for the scenario you stupidly imply.
It is beecause of your class envy tripe turning every single issue into a class war that serious conversation breaks down. You need to hold a mirror up to that twisted face of yours. Do you think deep down Gandhi was as a big a bigot as you are now?

The Wickham Man wrote:
Don't often agree with socialist posters but on this issue I am as angry as they will be. THis has been a quiet secret in public sector Quangos and senior departmental positions for some time. It goes back over 10 years when under Blair headhunters were told to recruit top echelon executives into the public sector. THe headhunters rubbed their hands at the prospect of huge commissions - and for the first time "executives" started to appear in the public sector and were appointed on gold plated contracts they could only dream of in the private sector. Instead of share options they were given guaranteed paid up pensions instead. It may not be criminal, but it was criminally incompetent by the Civil Service. The overinflated packages also dragged up all the salaries of mid ranking managers as well. Now we have a public sector where average mid management are on packages worth double what the private sector gets.
....And meanwhile all the focus still remains on the "bankers"!

The Wickham Man wrote:
Don't often agree with socialist posters but on this issue I am as angry as they will be. THis has been a quiet secret in public sector Quangos and senior departmental positions for some time. It goes back over 10 years when under Blair headhunters were told to recruit top echelon executives into the public sector. THe headhunters rubbed their hands at the prospect of huge commissions - and for the first time "executives" started to appear in the public sector and were appointed on gold plated contracts they could only dream of in the private sector. Instead of share options they were given guaranteed paid up pensions instead. It may not be criminal, but it was criminally incompetent by the Civil Service. The overinflated packages also dragged up all the salaries of mid ranking managers as well. Now we have a public sector where average mid management are on packages worth double what the private sector gets.
....And meanwhile all the focus still remains on the "bankers"!

The Wickham Man wrote:
Don't often agree with socialist posters but on this issue I am as angry as they will be. THis has been a quiet secret in public sector Quangos and senior departmental positions for some time. It goes back over 10 years when under Blair headhunters were told to recruit top echelon executives into the public sector. THe headhunters rubbed their hands at the prospect of huge commissions - and for the first time "executives" started to appear in the public sector and were appointed on gold plated contracts they could only dream of in the private sector. Instead of share options they were given guaranteed paid up pensions instead. It may not be criminal, but it was criminally incompetent by the Civil Service. The overinflated packages also dragged up all the salaries of mid ranking managers as well. Now we have a public sector where average mid management are on packages worth double what the private sector gets.
....And meanwhile all the focus still remains on the "bankers"!

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
Don't often agree with socialist posters but on this issue I am as angry as they will be. THis has been a quiet secret in public sector Quangos and senior departmental positions for some time. It goes back over 10 years when under Blair headhunters were told to recruit top echelon executives into the public sector. THe headhunters rubbed their hands at the prospect of huge commissions - and for the first time "executives" started to appear in the public sector and were appointed on gold plated contracts they could only dream of in the private sector. Instead of share options they were given guaranteed paid up pensions instead. It may not be criminal, but it was criminally incompetent by the Civil Service. The overinflated packages also dragged up all the salaries of mid ranking managers as well. Now we have a public sector where average mid management are on packages worth double what the private sector gets.
....And meanwhile all the focus still remains on the "bankers"!

As you say, not often we are on the 'same page' politically but you are spot on!! This is a bloody OUTRAGE that these top bods have had such huge redunancy packages. One begs to ask the question why packages weren't reduced 'before' these took place? or am I being too simplistic!

Someone who walked straight into another job got nearly £100k of money that could be keeping services running. I'm not just angry, I'm incandescent although I wish I could say I was surprised!

Condor Man wrote:
Smith wasn't involved in appointing these fat cats, we're paying the price for June Bridle's reign.

Condor Man wrote:
Smith wasn't involved in appointing these fat cats, we're paying the price for June Bridle's reign.

Condor Man wrote:
Smith wasn't involved in appointing these fat cats, we're paying the price for June Bridle's reign.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Smith wasn't involved in appointing these fat cats, we're paying the price for June Bridle's reign.

Very honourable attempt to save the face of this council CM and your beloved Cllr Smith ......... However.
.
Murray joined SCC 10 years ago ...... there was no overall majority then so not Bridle.
.
Brown joined SCC at the age of 17 and to give her benefit of the doubt i would guess she is 40. So .... Not Bridle either.
.
Try something else !!!!
.
In addition to this i would be surprised if redundancy packages are included in contract of employment.

valleyvoice wrote:
The conservative administration - driven by a pathological hatred of the public sector rather than a need for prudent management of taxpayers' money - is hellbent on dismantling the Council infrastructure at any price. Consequently they are spending millons on getting rid of staff - many of whom did not want to leave. Some of those - like Lorraine Brown and Nick Murphy - have done very well out of this. Others - including me - have not. There were other ways of reducing the Council wage bill that would have been less painful and not store up a massive financial problem for the next year's council who will inherit this mess.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Condor Man wrote: Smith wasn't involved in appointing these fat cats, we're paying the price for June Bridle's reign.

Very honourable attempt to save the face of this council CM and your beloved Cllr Smith ......... However. . Murray joined SCC 10 years ago ...... there was no overall majority then so not Bridle. . Brown joined SCC at the age of 17 and to give her benefit of the doubt i would guess she is 40. So .... Not Bridle either. . Try something else !!!! . In addition to this i would be surprised if redundancy packages are included in contract of employment.

The Wickham Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
When democracy operates like ‘Yes Minister’ why should anybody be surprised that ‘Fat Cats’, whose advice our so called elected representatives tend to depend upon, safeguard their own interests
.
Fat cats often suggest how the so called councillors should be slave driving the ordinary workers, sadly the councillors seem to lack sense, especially when they also happen to be followers of that woman Thatcher
.
So upper classes get looked after and middle class and workers get shafted
.
Osborne has done it nationally and Smith’s silly lot are doing it in Southampton
.
But then ask yourself who voted for them? We the people
.
Should we also not take responsibility for keep on trusting the same three main parties, which in reality are virtually the same?

What is it with you? You write the most supid unsubstantiated bigotted class-hating misguided garbage on here time after time - you make yourself look foolish trying to blame everything in the world onto someone who hasn't even been in power for 20 years. I explained that this current problem arose long since Thatcher was around and it was a policy that seemed reasonable at the time - oh yes and it was under a labour government, stupid. It is to do with the contracts that were used to incentivise average calibre managers into the public sector using gold plated guarantees that now look massively out of place. Redundant managers cannot be sacked without their pensions being paid up. Even in your warped imaginations Does the woman in the picture look like a "toff" living in a "mansion" riding to hounds and dining at the palace? Do you imagine that in interviews she was asked who she voited for with only a tory getting a tick in the box? The public sector interviewing process is so carefully screened as to be totally impossible for the scenario you stupidly imply.
It is beecause of your class envy tripe turning every single issue into a class war that serious conversation breaks down. You need to hold a mirror up to that twisted face of yours. Do you think deep down Gandhi was as a big a bigot as you are now?

loosehead wrote:
Look who set the redundancy packages? Are you saying that anyone who takes redundancy only to walk in to another job should give back the money? My uncle worked for Vospers ship builders got made redundant walked down the road got taken on by Vosper ship repairs same company. We might not like the payments but some one agreed to the terms way before this council came to power. I'm against cutting the redundancy packages but to complain about that & then kick up about these payments is hypocritical. Are you saying the council should slash redundancy packages? or is that only in the case of higher earners?

George4th wrote:
I think you should all re-read the first comment on by The Wickham Man. He summed it up correctly.
>
We may not agree with the payoffs (and I don't) but it is part of the long term cost reducing process. Those council employee contracts were agreed way before the current council took over. Was it a Labour council at the time of the issuance of those contracts?

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

Linesman wrote:

George4th wrote:
I think you should all re-read the first comment on by The Wickham Man. He summed it up correctly.
>
We may not agree with the payoffs (and I don't) but it is part of the long term cost reducing process. Those council employee contracts were agreed way before the current council took over. Was it a Labour council at the time of the issuance of those contracts?

If you are so keen to talk of contracts, what about the contracts that SCC has with the rest of its staff?

The Council employees have a contracted pay agreement, but Royston&Co want to ignore that by cutting their wages.

I suppose that you, like Royston, agrees with contracts when it suits you.

Linesman wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
When democracy operates like ‘Yes Minister’ why should anybody be surprised that ‘Fat Cats’, whose advice our so called elected representatives tend to depend upon, safeguard their own interests
.
Fat cats often suggest how the so called councillors should be slave driving the ordinary workers, sadly the councillors seem to lack sense, especially when they also happen to be followers of that woman Thatcher
.
So upper classes get looked after and middle class and workers get shafted
.
Osborne has done it nationally and Smith’s silly lot are doing it in Southampton
.
But then ask yourself who voted for them? We the people
.
Should we also not take responsibility for keep on trusting the same three main parties, which in reality are virtually the same?

What is it with you? You write the most supid unsubstantiated bigotted class-hating misguided garbage on here time after time - you make yourself look foolish trying to blame everything in the world onto someone who hasn't even been in power for 20 years. I explained that this current problem arose long since Thatcher was around and it was a policy that seemed reasonable at the time - oh yes and it was under a labour government, stupid. It is to do with the contracts that were used to incentivise average calibre managers into the public sector using gold plated guarantees that now look massively out of place. Redundant managers cannot be sacked without their pensions being paid up. Even in your warped imaginations Does the woman in the picture look like a "toff" living in a "mansion" riding to hounds and dining at the palace? Do you imagine that in interviews she was asked who she voited for with only a tory getting a tick in the box? The public sector interviewing process is so carefully screened as to be totally impossible for the scenario you stupidly imply.
It is beecause of your class envy tripe turning every single issue into a class war that serious conversation breaks down. You need to hold a mirror up to that twisted face of yours. Do you think deep down Gandhi was as a big a bigot as you are now?

She may not have been in power for 20 years, but her influence lingers on, and there are still plenty who think that she was right.

Adolph Hitler has been dead for 66 years, but there are still some people who think that he was right as well.

Just because a person has not been in power for a long time, or has been dead for even longer, does not mean that they no longer have an influence now.

Sadly, it would appear that the ones that leave a legacy that still influences people are the ones that had a policy of division.

George4th wrote:

Linesman wrote:

George4th wrote: I think you should all re-read the first comment on by The Wickham Man. He summed it up correctly. > We may not agree with the payoffs (and I don't) but it is part of the long term cost reducing process. Those council employee contracts were agreed way before the current council took over. Was it a Labour council at the time of the issuance of those contracts?

If you are so keen to talk of contracts, what about the contracts that SCC has with the rest of its staff? The Council employees have a contracted pay agreement, but Royston&Co want to ignore that by cutting their wages. I suppose that you, like Royston, agrees with contracts when it suits you.

You can look at it anyway you like but SCC has to cut costs. The Unions were totally useless at offering sensible alternatives. > SCC is no different from a Private company who have to cut costs. The trick is to do it quickly so that everyone can get on with their lives - those who stay and those who go. The Union involvement in SCC has been as helpful as helpful as throwing a drowning man both ends of a rope!

thinklikealocal wrote:

George4th wrote:

Linesman wrote:

George4th wrote: I think you should all re-read the first comment on by The Wickham Man. He summed it up correctly. > We may not agree with the payoffs (and I don't) but it is part of the long term cost reducing process. Those council employee contracts were agreed way before the current council took over. Was it a Labour council at the time of the issuance of those contracts?

If you are so keen to talk of contracts, what about the contracts that SCC has with the rest of its staff? The Council employees have a contracted pay agreement, but Royston&Co want to ignore that by cutting their wages. I suppose that you, like Royston, agrees with contracts when it suits you.

You can look at it anyway you like but SCC has to cut costs. The Unions were totally useless at offering sensible alternatives. > SCC is no different from a Private company who have to cut costs. The trick is to do it quickly so that everyone can get on with their lives - those who stay and those who go. The Union involvement in SCC has been as helpful as helpful as throwing a drowning man both ends of a rope!

If SCC was 'forced' to cut staff pay to 'save money' why did it do it hot on the heals of a NEW initiative to give Council Tax rebates to the wealthiest pensioners in the City that cost £1m? You may well say that the Unions had no ideas about how to save money (I'm not sure it's really their responsibility to come up with the ideas?) but Officers did and many of these were ignored or written off because they were not politically correct, or in other words, went against the terms of the ridiculous 'bribery' blabbed to voters to get the Tories elected in the first place.

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

You can go back to the 80's government and the fact the torys hid there borrowing though the WWII loan, and it was the start of today troubles, so its the sins of the granmother to say.

George4th wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

George4th wrote:

Linesman wrote:

George4th wrote: I think you should all re-read the first comment on by The Wickham Man. He summed it up correctly. > We may not agree with the payoffs (and I don't) but it is part of the long term cost reducing process. Those council employee contracts were agreed way before the current council took over. Was it a Labour council at the time of the issuance of those contracts?

If you are so keen to talk of contracts, what about the contracts that SCC has with the rest of its staff? The Council employees have a contracted pay agreement, but Royston&Co want to ignore that by cutting their wages. I suppose that you, like Royston, agrees with contracts when it suits you.

You can look at it anyway you like but SCC has to cut costs. The Unions were totally useless at offering sensible alternatives. > SCC is no different from a Private company who have to cut costs. The trick is to do it quickly so that everyone can get on with their lives - those who stay and those who go. The Union involvement in SCC has been as helpful as helpful as throwing a drowning man both ends of a rope!

If SCC was 'forced' to cut staff pay to 'save money' why did it do it hot on the heals of a NEW initiative to give Council Tax rebates to the wealthiest pensioners in the City that cost £1m? You may well say that the Unions had no ideas about how to save money (I'm not sure it's really their responsibility to come up with the ideas?) but Officers did and many of these were ignored or written off because they were not politically correct, or in other words, went against the terms of the ridiculous 'bribery' blabbed to voters to get the Tories elected in the first place.

Labour was in power at SCC for a very long time and they were absolutely useless. Southampton, as a City, went backwards! Are you seriously telling me that is what you want to go back to?

southy wrote:
Oh George4th just to remind you that Royston borrowed £5 million from a council for the sole purpose to fight the Unions and that was before he let on to the Unions what he was going to do.
So he run up a bill that got to be paid off by the tax payers, really it should come out of his own pocket.

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
When democracy operates like ‘Yes Minister’ why should anybody be surprised that ‘Fat Cats’, whose advice our so called elected representatives tend to depend upon, safeguard their own interests
.
Fat cats often suggest how the so called councillors should be slave driving the ordinary workers, sadly the councillors seem to lack sense, especially when they also happen to be followers of that woman Thatcher
.
So upper classes get looked after and middle class and workers get shafted
.
Osborne has done it nationally and Smith’s silly lot are doing it in Southampton
.
But then ask yourself who voted for them? We the people
.
Should we also not take responsibility for keep on trusting the same three main parties, which in reality are virtually the same?

What is it with you? You write the most supid unsubstantiated bigotted class-hating misguided garbage on here time after time - you make yourself look foolish trying to blame everything in the world onto someone who hasn't even been in power for 20 years. I explained that this current problem arose long since Thatcher was around and it was a policy that seemed reasonable at the time - oh yes and it was under a labour government, stupid. It is to do with the contracts that were used to incentivise average calibre managers into the public sector using gold plated guarantees that now look massively out of place. Redundant managers cannot be sacked without their pensions being paid up. Even in your warped imaginations Does the woman in the picture look like a "toff" living in a "mansion" riding to hounds and dining at the palace? Do you imagine that in interviews she was asked who she voited for with only a tory getting a tick in the box? The public sector interviewing process is so carefully screened as to be totally impossible for the scenario you stupidly imply.
It is beecause of your class envy tripe turning every single issue into a class war that serious conversation breaks down. You need to hold a mirror up to that twisted face of yours. Do you think deep down Gandhi was as a big a bigot as you are now?

She may not have been in power for 20 years, but her influence lingers on, and there are still plenty who think that she was right.

Adolph Hitler has been dead for 66 years, but there are still some people who think that he was right as well.

Just because a person has not been in power for a long time, or has been dead for even longer, does not mean that they no longer have an influence now.

Sadly, it would appear that the ones that leave a legacy that still influences people are the ones that had a policy of division.

That is so very true, thats why you get some on here saying its today not 30 years ago.
They just do not relise a bad legacy that will influence people far into the future and hate to be reminded of that bad legacy, to them it did not happen.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

You can go back to the 80's government and the fact the torys hid there borrowing though the WWII loan, and it was the start of today troubles, so its the sins of the granmother to say.

Southy you mentioned this once before and you had to be corrected. The truth is that payments of the Anglo American loan were met every year except 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 because the exchange rates were seen as impractical. The tories hid nothing in 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 because as you ought to know they were not in power. So in fact labour were in power more than the tories when decisions were taken not to repay than year and before you talk of who racked up debts You may want o consult Balance of Payment figures for every year since World War 2 and then remember devaluation and the IMF loan under the Wilson Government. You are very poor at factual accuracy and detail.

The Outside Edge wrote:

southy wrote:
Oh George4th just to remind you that Royston borrowed £5 million from a council for the sole purpose to fight the Unions and that was before he let on to the Unions what he was going to do.
So he run up a bill that got to be paid off by the tax payers, really it should come out of his own pocket.

Southy you are wrong, the bill to QC's alone is £12 million to fight the unions.

George4th wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

George4th wrote:

Linesman wrote:

George4th wrote: I think you should all re-read the first comment on by The Wickham Man. He summed it up correctly. > We may not agree with the payoffs (and I don't) but it is part of the long term cost reducing process. Those council employee contracts were agreed way before the current council took over. Was it a Labour council at the time of the issuance of those contracts?

If you are so keen to talk of contracts, what about the contracts that SCC has with the rest of its staff? The Council employees have a contracted pay agreement, but Royston&Co want to ignore that by cutting their wages. I suppose that you, like Royston, agrees with contracts when it suits you.

You can look at it anyway you like but SCC has to cut costs. The Unions were totally useless at offering sensible alternatives. > SCC is no different from a Private company who have to cut costs. The trick is to do it quickly so that everyone can get on with their lives - those who stay and those who go. The Union involvement in SCC has been as helpful as helpful as throwing a drowning man both ends of a rope!

If SCC was 'forced' to cut staff pay to 'save money' why did it do it hot on the heals of a NEW initiative to give Council Tax rebates to the wealthiest pensioners in the City that cost £1m? You may well say that the Unions had no ideas about how to save money (I'm not sure it's really their responsibility to come up with the ideas?) but Officers did and many of these were ignored or written off because they were not politically correct, or in other words, went against the terms of the ridiculous 'bribery' blabbed to voters to get the Tories elected in the first place.

Labour was in power at SCC for a very long time and they were absolutely useless. Southampton, as a City, went backwards! Are you seriously telling me that is what you want to go back to?

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
When democracy operates like ‘Yes Minister’ why should anybody be surprised that ‘Fat Cats’, whose advice our so called elected representatives tend to depend upon, safeguard their own interests
.
Fat cats often suggest how the so called councillors should be slave driving the ordinary workers, sadly the councillors seem to lack sense, especially when they also happen to be followers of that woman Thatcher
.
So upper classes get looked after and middle class and workers get shafted
.
Osborne has done it nationally and Smith’s silly lot are doing it in Southampton
.
But then ask yourself who voted for them? We the people
.
Should we also not take responsibility for keep on trusting the same three main parties, which in reality are virtually the same?

What is it with you? You write the most supid unsubstantiated bigotted class-hating misguided garbage on here time after time - you make yourself look foolish trying to blame everything in the world onto someone who hasn't even been in power for 20 years. I explained that this current problem arose long since Thatcher was around and it was a policy that seemed reasonable at the time - oh yes and it was under a labour government, stupid. It is to do with the contracts that were used to incentivise average calibre managers into the public sector using gold plated guarantees that now look massively out of place. Redundant managers cannot be sacked without their pensions being paid up. Even in your warped imaginations Does the woman in the picture look like a "toff" living in a "mansion" riding to hounds and dining at the palace? Do you imagine that in interviews she was asked who she voited for with only a tory getting a tick in the box? The public sector interviewing process is so carefully screened as to be totally impossible for the scenario you stupidly imply.
It is beecause of your class envy tripe turning every single issue into a class war that serious conversation breaks down. You need to hold a mirror up to that twisted face of yours. Do you think deep down Gandhi was as a big a bigot as you are now?

She may not have been in power for 20 years, but her influence lingers on, and there are still plenty who think that she was right.

Adolph Hitler has been dead for 66 years, but there are still some people who think that he was right as well.

Just because a person has not been in power for a long time, or has been dead for even longer, does not mean that they no longer have an influence now.

Sadly, it would appear that the ones that leave a legacy that still influences people are the ones that had a policy of division.

That is so very true, thats why you get some on here saying its today not 30 years ago.
They just do not relise a bad legacy that will influence people far into the future and hate to be reminded of that bad legacy, to them it did not happen.

People hate to be reminded what happened? Is this like you deny the widely recognised mass murders attributed to communist leaders like Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Ceaucescu etc etc etc. Just to save you the effort of mangling the language in a reply, I'll take it as read that you alone know that these monsters were all closet fascist who were trying to give socialism a bad name.

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
When democracy operates like ‘Yes Minister’ why should anybody be surprised that ‘Fat Cats’, whose advice our so called elected representatives tend to depend upon, safeguard their own interests
.
Fat cats often suggest how the so called councillors should be slave driving the ordinary workers, sadly the councillors seem to lack sense, especially when they also happen to be followers of that woman Thatcher
.
So upper classes get looked after and middle class and workers get shafted
.
Osborne has done it nationally and Smith’s silly lot are doing it in Southampton
.
But then ask yourself who voted for them? We the people
.
Should we also not take responsibility for keep on trusting the same three main parties, which in reality are virtually the same?

What is it with you? You write the most supid unsubstantiated bigotted class-hating misguided garbage on here time after time - you make yourself look foolish trying to blame everything in the world onto someone who hasn't even been in power for 20 years. I explained that this current problem arose long since Thatcher was around and it was a policy that seemed reasonable at the time - oh yes and it was under a labour government, stupid. It is to do with the contracts that were used to incentivise average calibre managers into the public sector using gold plated guarantees that now look massively out of place. Redundant managers cannot be sacked without their pensions being paid up. Even in your warped imaginations Does the woman in the picture look like a "toff" living in a "mansion" riding to hounds and dining at the palace? Do you imagine that in interviews she was asked who she voited for with only a tory getting a tick in the box? The public sector interviewing process is so carefully screened as to be totally impossible for the scenario you stupidly imply.
It is beecause of your class envy tripe turning every single issue into a class war that serious conversation breaks down. You need to hold a mirror up to that twisted face of yours. Do you think deep down Gandhi was as a big a bigot as you are now?

She may not have been in power for 20 years, but her influence lingers on, and there are still plenty who think that she was right.

Adolph Hitler has been dead for 66 years, but there are still some people who think that he was right as well.

Just because a person has not been in power for a long time, or has been dead for even longer, does not mean that they no longer have an influence now.

Sadly, it would appear that the ones that leave a legacy that still influences people are the ones that had a policy of division.

That is so very true, thats why you get some on here saying its today not 30 years ago.
They just do not relise a bad legacy that will influence people far into the future and hate to be reminded of that bad legacy, to them it did not happen.

People hate to be reminded what happened? Is this like you deny the widely recognised mass murders attributed to communist leaders like Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Ceaucescu etc etc etc. Just to save you the effort of mangling the language in a reply, I'll take it as read that you alone know that these monsters were all closet fascist who were trying to give socialism a bad name.

No Touchie you need to learn the difference, Stalin was no Communist and Mao was the same has Stalin and that was Provinicalists (industralist in control) and that is capitalism.
Communist would of left what Lenin set up and that was an industral base run by the workers a Co-Op, Stalin done away with that and put the Provinicalists in control.
And Pol-pot was American back, Fascism is extreme Right-wing Corporations in control.

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

You can go back to the 80's government and the fact the torys hid there borrowing though the WWII loan, and it was the start of today troubles, so its the sins of the granmother to say.

Southy you mentioned this once before and you had to be corrected. The truth is that payments of the Anglo American loan were met every year except 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 because the exchange rates were seen as impractical. The tories hid nothing in 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 because as you ought to know they were not in power. So in fact labour were in power more than the tories when decisions were taken not to repay than year and before you talk of who racked up debts You may want o consult Balance of Payment figures for every year since World War 2 and then remember devaluation and the IMF loan under the Wilson Government. You are very poor at factual accuracy and detail.

Andy
1945 to 1951 Labour.
1951 to 1964 Tory's
1964 to 1970 Labour.
1970 to 1974 Tory's
1974 to 1979 Labour.
1979 to 1997 Tory's
1997 to 2010 Labour.
So the Torys was in power for 1956, 1957, 1964 and was in power at the time when the payment was due. Andy, and in 1984 the Tory's took a massive loan out against the WWII

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
When democracy operates like ‘Yes Minister’ why should anybody be surprised that ‘Fat Cats’, whose advice our so called elected representatives tend to depend upon, safeguard their own interests
.
Fat cats often suggest how the so called councillors should be slave driving the ordinary workers, sadly the councillors seem to lack sense, especially when they also happen to be followers of that woman Thatcher
.
So upper classes get looked after and middle class and workers get shafted
.
Osborne has done it nationally and Smith’s silly lot are doing it in Southampton
.
But then ask yourself who voted for them? We the people
.
Should we also not take responsibility for keep on trusting the same three main parties, which in reality are virtually the same?

What is it with you? You write the most supid unsubstantiated bigotted class-hating misguided garbage on here time after time - you make yourself look foolish trying to blame everything in the world onto someone who hasn't even been in power for 20 years. I explained that this current problem arose long since Thatcher was around and it was a policy that seemed reasonable at the time - oh yes and it was under a labour government, stupid. It is to do with the contracts that were used to incentivise average calibre managers into the public sector using gold plated guarantees that now look massively out of place. Redundant managers cannot be sacked without their pensions being paid up. Even in your warped imaginations Does the woman in the picture look like a "toff" living in a "mansion" riding to hounds and dining at the palace? Do you imagine that in interviews she was asked who she voited for with only a tory getting a tick in the box? The public sector interviewing process is so carefully screened as to be totally impossible for the scenario you stupidly imply.
It is beecause of your class envy tripe turning every single issue into a class war that serious conversation breaks down. You need to hold a mirror up to that twisted face of yours. Do you think deep down Gandhi was as a big a bigot as you are now?

She may not have been in power for 20 years, but her influence lingers on, and there are still plenty who think that she was right.

Adolph Hitler has been dead for 66 years, but there are still some people who think that he was right as well.

Just because a person has not been in power for a long time, or has been dead for even longer, does not mean that they no longer have an influence now.

Sadly, it would appear that the ones that leave a legacy that still influences people are the ones that had a policy of division.

That is so very true, thats why you get some on here saying its today not 30 years ago.
They just do not relise a bad legacy that will influence people far into the future and hate to be reminded of that bad legacy, to them it did not happen.

People hate to be reminded what happened? Is this like you deny the widely recognised mass murders attributed to communist leaders like Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Ceaucescu etc etc etc. Just to save you the effort of mangling the language in a reply, I'll take it as read that you alone know that these monsters were all closet fascist who were trying to give socialism a bad name.

No Touchie you need to learn the difference, Stalin was no Communist and Mao was the same has Stalin and that was Provinicalists (industralist in control) and that is capitalism.
Communist would of left what Lenin set up and that was an industral base run by the workers a Co-Op, Stalin done away with that and put the Provinicalists in control.
And Pol-pot was American back, Fascism is extreme Right-wing Corporations in control.

Glad to see that you're still in denial of what the rest of the world seems to accept as the facts.

thinklikealocal wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Look who set the redundancy packages? Are you saying that anyone who takes redundancy only to walk in to another job should give back the money? My uncle worked for Vospers ship builders got made redundant walked down the road got taken on by Vosper ship repairs same company. We might not like the payments but some one agreed to the terms way before this council came to power. I'm against cutting the redundancy packages but to complain about that & then kick up about these payments is hypocritical. Are you saying the council should slash redundancy packages? or is that only in the case of higher earners?

I think the complaint about the 'packages' for these two is that Royston Smith is citing the cost of redundancies to date - £6m - as a reason for reducing the value of packages in the future. I think some people find it a bit of a choker that people at the bottom of the heap, who would not have got much anyway, might now get even less because there is 'no money left' (his words) when knowing that over 300k was spent on one person's redundancy package. However, Lorraine Brown is not to blame, perhaps the new Chief Exec (at least he was when this all started) could explain why the most talented and respected senior manager the organisation had decided to jump ship shortly after he arrived and starteed bulldozing his way through the organisation with little or no respect for his team at the top....

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
It seems to me completely unfair that if the low paid must have their contracts renegotiated then so can the high paid executives such as Lorraine Brown. I completely agree with those on this thread who criticise this dichotomy. But I am still at a loss about this phantom loan that Southy claims was made by the Thatcher Government in 1984. I have checked the cabinet papers on Callaghan / Foot's loan from the IMF in 1976 and I suspect Southy is getting muddled up with this. If you think the last two governments have been bad........

southy wrote:
Oh George4th just to remind you that Royston borrowed £5 million from a council for the sole purpose to fight the Unions and that was before he let on to the Unions what he was going to do.
So he run up a bill that got to be paid off by the tax payers, really it should come out of his own pocket.

southy wrote:
Oh George4th just to remind you that Royston borrowed £5 million from a council for the sole purpose to fight the Unions and that was before he let on to the Unions what he was going to do.
So he run up a bill that got to be paid off by the tax payers, really it should come out of his own pocket.

The Outside Edge wrote:

southy wrote:
Oh George4th just to remind you that Royston borrowed £5 million from a council for the sole purpose to fight the Unions and that was before he let on to the Unions what he was going to do.
So he run up a bill that got to be paid off by the tax payers, really it should come out of his own pocket.

Southy you are wrong, the bill to QC's alone is £12 million to fight the unions.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

George4th wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

George4th wrote:

Linesman wrote:

George4th wrote: I think you should all re-read the first comment on by The Wickham Man. He summed it up correctly. > We may not agree with the payoffs (and I don't) but it is part of the long term cost reducing process. Those council employee contracts were agreed way before the current council took over. Was it a Labour council at the time of the issuance of those contracts?

If you are so keen to talk of contracts, what about the contracts that SCC has with the rest of its staff? The Council employees have a contracted pay agreement, but Royston&Co want to ignore that by cutting their wages. I suppose that you, like Royston, agrees with contracts when it suits you.

You can look at it anyway you like but SCC has to cut costs. The Unions were totally useless at offering sensible alternatives. > SCC is no different from a Private company who have to cut costs. The trick is to do it quickly so that everyone can get on with their lives - those who stay and those who go. The Union involvement in SCC has been as helpful as helpful as throwing a drowning man both ends of a rope!

If SCC was 'forced' to cut staff pay to 'save money' why did it do it hot on the heals of a NEW initiative to give Council Tax rebates to the wealthiest pensioners in the City that cost £1m? You may well say that the Unions had no ideas about how to save money (I'm not sure it's really their responsibility to come up with the ideas?) but Officers did and many of these were ignored or written off because they were not politically correct, or in other words, went against the terms of the ridiculous 'bribery' blabbed to voters to get the Tories elected in the first place.

Labour was in power at SCC for a very long time and they were absolutely useless. Southampton, as a City, went backwards! Are you seriously telling me that is what you want to go back to?

G IV you and the Wickham man are so right wing I reckon if you went on a sea cruise you would both drown on the starboard side, no great loss though.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

PFI's ...terrible legacy that was introduced by the Tory John Major.
.
Ironically £60bn was signed off by Lansley and one other in the first half of this year thats how bad it was

George4th wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

George4th wrote:

thinklikealocal wrote:

George4th wrote:

Linesman wrote:

George4th wrote: I think you should all re-read the first comment on by The Wickham Man. He summed it up correctly. > We may not agree with the payoffs (and I don't) but it is part of the long term cost reducing process. Those council employee contracts were agreed way before the current council took over. Was it a Labour council at the time of the issuance of those contracts?

If you are so keen to talk of contracts, what about the contracts that SCC has with the rest of its staff? The Council employees have a contracted pay agreement, but Royston&Co want to ignore that by cutting their wages. I suppose that you, like Royston, agrees with contracts when it suits you.

You can look at it anyway you like but SCC has to cut costs. The Unions were totally useless at offering sensible alternatives. > SCC is no different from a Private company who have to cut costs. The trick is to do it quickly so that everyone can get on with their lives - those who stay and those who go. The Union involvement in SCC has been as helpful as helpful as throwing a drowning man both ends of a rope!

If SCC was 'forced' to cut staff pay to 'save money' why did it do it hot on the heals of a NEW initiative to give Council Tax rebates to the wealthiest pensioners in the City that cost £1m? You may well say that the Unions had no ideas about how to save money (I'm not sure it's really their responsibility to come up with the ideas?) but Officers did and many of these were ignored or written off because they were not politically correct, or in other words, went against the terms of the ridiculous 'bribery' blabbed to voters to get the Tories elected in the first place.

Labour was in power at SCC for a very long time and they were absolutely useless. Southampton, as a City, went backwards! Are you seriously telling me that is what you want to go back to?

G IV you and the Wickham man are so right wing I reckon if you went on a sea cruise you would both drown on the starboard side, no great loss though.

If being right wing means doing things for yourself then you are correct. I don't expect other people to do it for me. If I have no job then it is down to me to survive and prosper. This country has sat on its hands for too long which is why we are getting so far behind in the global economy.

Linesman wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
When democracy operates like ‘Yes Minister’ why should anybody be surprised that ‘Fat Cats’, whose advice our so called elected representatives tend to depend upon, safeguard their own interests
.
Fat cats often suggest how the so called councillors should be slave driving the ordinary workers, sadly the councillors seem to lack sense, especially when they also happen to be followers of that woman Thatcher
.
So upper classes get looked after and middle class and workers get shafted
.
Osborne has done it nationally and Smith’s silly lot are doing it in Southampton
.
But then ask yourself who voted for them? We the people
.
Should we also not take responsibility for keep on trusting the same three main parties, which in reality are virtually the same?

What is it with you? You write the most supid unsubstantiated bigotted class-hating misguided garbage on here time after time - you make yourself look foolish trying to blame everything in the world onto someone who hasn't even been in power for 20 years. I explained that this current problem arose long since Thatcher was around and it was a policy that seemed reasonable at the time - oh yes and it was under a labour government, stupid. It is to do with the contracts that were used to incentivise average calibre managers into the public sector using gold plated guarantees that now look massively out of place. Redundant managers cannot be sacked without their pensions being paid up. Even in your warped imaginations Does the woman in the picture look like a "toff" living in a "mansion" riding to hounds and dining at the palace? Do you imagine that in interviews she was asked who she voited for with only a tory getting a tick in the box? The public sector interviewing process is so carefully screened as to be totally impossible for the scenario you stupidly imply.
It is beecause of your class envy tripe turning every single issue into a class war that serious conversation breaks down. You need to hold a mirror up to that twisted face of yours. Do you think deep down Gandhi was as a big a bigot as you are now?

She may not have been in power for 20 years, but her influence lingers on, and there are still plenty who think that she was right.

Adolph Hitler has been dead for 66 years, but there are still some people who think that he was right as well.

Just because a person has not been in power for a long time, or has been dead for even longer, does not mean that they no longer have an influence now.

Sadly, it would appear that the ones that leave a legacy that still influences people are the ones that had a policy of division.

That is so very true, thats why you get some on here saying its today not 30 years ago.
They just do not relise a bad legacy that will influence people far into the future and hate to be reminded of that bad legacy, to them it did not happen.

People hate to be reminded what happened? Is this like you deny the widely recognised mass murders attributed to communist leaders like Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Ceaucescu etc etc etc. Just to save you the effort of mangling the language in a reply, I'll take it as read that you alone know that these monsters were all closet fascist who were trying to give socialism a bad name.

No Touchie you need to learn the difference, Stalin was no Communist and Mao was the same has Stalin and that was Provinicalists (industralist in control) and that is capitalism.
Communist would of left what Lenin set up and that was an industral base run by the workers a Co-Op, Stalin done away with that and put the Provinicalists in control.
And Pol-pot was American back, Fascism is extreme Right-wing Corporations in control.

Glad to see that you're still in denial of what the rest of the world seems to accept as the facts.

Southy, I think that Torchie1 was right when he said that those he listed were closet fascists who were trying to give socialism a bad name.

In my opinion, what Tito created in Yugoslavia was the nearest to Communism that we have seen, but with his death the ethnic groups broke it up.

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

PFI's ...terrible legacy that was introduced by the Tory John Major.
.
Ironically £60bn was signed off by Lansley and one other in the first half of this year thats how bad it was

You are correct that Major used them - they are few and they are affordable. Sadly, Labour are not good negotiators and have saddled us with huge debt. For example, every hospital built in their tenure is a PFI and is helping to bankrupt hospital management and the country! Lansley had NO CHOICE because the ones he signed off were already agreed.
Go and watch Panorama and then come back and tell me the true story! Labour have ruined the futures of our young people - they will have a lot lot less opportunity than you or I.

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
Tories introduced PFI in 1992. Tories are as bad as Labour on this one in my view. Interestingly the UKs CBI support PFI.
.
http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Private_fin

ance_initiative

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

PFI's ...terrible legacy that was introduced by the Tory John Major.
.
Ironically £60bn was signed off by Lansley and one other in the first half of this year thats how bad it was

You are correct that Major used them - they are few and they are affordable. Sadly, Labour are not good negotiators and have saddled us with huge debt. For example, every hospital built in their tenure is a PFI and is helping to bankrupt hospital management and the country! Lansley had NO CHOICE because the ones he signed off were already agreed.
Go and watch Panorama and then come back and tell me the true story! Labour have ruined the futures of our young people - they will have a lot lot less opportunity than you or I.

Wrong ........ Lansley had every opportunity NOT to sign the PFI contracts just like Gove did on schools ...... but he chose to carry on.
.
As regards you last sentence i would be a little less finger pointing and agree that European (in total) Politicians have limited the futures of our children.
.

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

PFI's ...terrible legacy that was introduced by the Tory John Major.
.
Ironically £60bn was signed off by Lansley and one other in the first half of this year thats how bad it was

You are correct that Major used them - they are few and they are affordable. Sadly, Labour are not good negotiators and have saddled us with huge debt. For example, every hospital built in their tenure is a PFI and is helping to bankrupt hospital management and the country! Lansley had NO CHOICE because the ones he signed off were already agreed.
Go and watch Panorama and then come back and tell me the true story! Labour have ruined the futures of our young people - they will have a lot lot less opportunity than you or I.

Wrong ........ Lansley had every opportunity NOT to sign the PFI contracts just like Gove did on schools ...... but he chose to carry on.
.
As regards you last sentence i would be a little less finger pointing and agree that European (in total) Politicians have limited the futures of our children.
.

Which PFI did Lansley sign? And what were the conditions of the PFI?
>
My last sentence was spot on. Europe has got into trouble for different reasons. For example, because of extremely poor governance,
Greece has got the banks into trouble and not the other way around!
Be assured that the last government will go down in history as one of the worst ever - they had no saving graces and no legacy worth mentioning. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mendleson et al all rode off into the sunset as multi millionaires on the back of their Investment Portfolios and left us, the great British Public, to pick up the mess.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

PFI's ...terrible legacy that was introduced by the Tory John Major.
.
Ironically £60bn was signed off by Lansley and one other in the first half of this year thats how bad it was

You are correct that Major used them - they are few and they are affordable. Sadly, Labour are not good negotiators and have saddled us with huge debt. For example, every hospital built in their tenure is a PFI and is helping to bankrupt hospital management and the country! Lansley had NO CHOICE because the ones he signed off were already agreed.
Go and watch Panorama and then come back and tell me the true story! Labour have ruined the futures of our young people - they will have a lot lot less opportunity than you or I.

Wrong ........ Lansley had every opportunity NOT to sign the PFI contracts just like Gove did on schools ...... but he chose to carry on.
.
As regards you last sentence i would be a little less finger pointing and agree that European (in total) Politicians have limited the futures of our children.
.

Which PFI did Lansley sign? And what were the conditions of the PFI?
>
My last sentence was spot on. Europe has got into trouble for different reasons. For example, because of extremely poor governance,
Greece has got the banks into trouble and not the other way around!
Be assured that the last government will go down in history as one of the worst ever - they had no saving graces and no legacy worth mentioning. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mendleson et al all rode off into the sunset as multi millionaires on the back of their Investment Portfolios and left us, the great British Public, to pick up the mess.

AS requested from the Telegraph.
.
Quote:- and yet despite this, even as Andrew Lansley attacks Labour's "sick debt crisis", he and his colleagues are signing up to yet more PFI. Michael Gove, for example, recently agreed to £2bn of funding to build 100 new schools. He was forced to: he used up all his capital budget and the Treasury wouldn't bail him out. Andrew Lansley has also agreed to continue several PFI schemes, such as Liverpool's Children's Health Park, or the Cambridge Cardiothoracic centre. Other PFI projects continued by this Government include Nottingham Express Rail, to which the Government and Nottingham county council have provided £578 million in PFI credits since 2006. Over the last 18 months, the Government has agreed to £6.9 billion in new PFI spending.
.
Is that enough proof.
.

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

George4th wrote:
I am amused by the anti Smith brigade blaming him for "the sins of the father", as it were!
>
In the bigger picture, what is happening at SCC is minuscule! People don't seem to realise how bad the situation is. We have had it too good for too long on borrowed money - it is time for pay back. Your standard of living is being eroded because the last government massively over-spending on the back of a Property Bubble and a Credit Bubble that went BUST!

P.S. Did anyone see Panorama about the PFIs? What a terrible legacy the last government have saddled us with!

PFI's ...terrible legacy that was introduced by the Tory John Major.
.
Ironically £60bn was signed off by Lansley and one other in the first half of this year thats how bad it was

You are correct that Major used them - they are few and they are affordable. Sadly, Labour are not good negotiators and have saddled us with huge debt. For example, every hospital built in their tenure is a PFI and is helping to bankrupt hospital management and the country! Lansley had NO CHOICE because the ones he signed off were already agreed.
Go and watch Panorama and then come back and tell me the true story! Labour have ruined the futures of our young people - they will have a lot lot less opportunity than you or I.

Wrong ........ Lansley had every opportunity NOT to sign the PFI contracts just like Gove did on schools ...... but he chose to carry on.
.
As regards you last sentence i would be a little less finger pointing and agree that European (in total) Politicians have limited the futures of our children.
.

Which PFI did Lansley sign? And what were the conditions of the PFI?
>
My last sentence was spot on. Europe has got into trouble for different reasons. For example, because of extremely poor governance,
Greece has got the banks into trouble and not the other way around!
Be assured that the last government will go down in history as one of the worst ever - they had no saving graces and no legacy worth mentioning. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mendleson et al all rode off into the sunset as multi millionaires on the back of their Investment Portfolios and left us, the great British Public, to pick up the mess.

AS requested from the Telegraph.
.
Quote:- and yet despite this, even as Andrew Lansley attacks Labour's "sick debt crisis", he and his colleagues are signing up to yet more PFI. Michael Gove, for example, recently agreed to £2bn of funding to build 100 new schools. He was forced to: he used up all his capital budget and the Treasury wouldn't bail him out. Andrew Lansley has also agreed to continue several PFI schemes, such as Liverpool's Children's Health Park, or the Cambridge Cardiothoracic centre. Other PFI projects continued by this Government include Nottingham Express Rail, to which the Government and Nottingham county council have provided £578 million in PFI credits since 2006. Over the last 18 months, the Government has agreed to £6.9 billion in new PFI spending.
.
Is that enough proof.
.

As I said before, those are the spending commitments left over by the previous government. The same as when Labour came into power and followed the Tory agenda for two years.
>
If you ran your business the way Labour negotiated PFIs you would not be in business now!
>
For example, 22 Hospital trusts who operate 60 Hospitals are in very very serious financial difficulty because of the PFIs negotiated by the Labour government - that does not include all the other Trusts who have the same problem but on a lesser scale!
>
The Classic example of Labour spending is the £12 Billion I.T. Project that has now been scrapped because it simply doesn't work! It was never ever going to work but Labour ploughed on and wasted a total of £12 Billion!
>
The list for wasting money is endless and is the reason we were in £1000 Billion of debt and rising when the coalition took over
>
The highlight of their tenure? Widening the gap between the have and the have nots! How terrible was that?