200 jobs face axe at Southampton City Council

Daily Echo: Southampton Civic Centre Southampton Civic Centre

MORE than 200 staff at Southampton City Council are set to lose their jobs, it has been revealed.

The Labour -run council plans to sacrifice temporary workers to find positions for permanent employees facing the axe.

It is part of a pledge to avoid making council staff redundant as council leaders face a mounting budget deficit, estimated at £42m over the next two years.

But Tories last night said the temporary workers were being treated as “second class citizens”.

Labour have already offered a deal to reverse staff pay cuts made by the previous Conservative administration.

But the council’s finance boss revealed he plans to let around 200 temporary staff go so a new redeployment scheme, modelled on one pioneered by Sunderland City Council, can be made to work.

Labour leaders had initially said staff would be kept on the payroll for 12 months while they were found new jobs within the council and given retraining if needed – averting expensive redundancy payments.

The proposed redeployment period was then cut to eight months and now, in a further blow to staff who may face redundancy, finance boss Councillor Simon Letts revealed the scheme will initially only run for four months – one month longer than the current notice period for budget cuts.

A “compromise agreement” payment is being considered for staff who do not want to be redeployed.

Cllr Letts said Labour had not set out the prospect of the job losses in their election promises because they didn’t have the full details of the council’s finances.

He said: “We’ve got in excess of 200 people on short-term temporary contracts working for the authority at the moment.

"They are stop-gap staff. Now our view is we feel that permanent staff committed to the authority with a long term sense of being part of a team is better than having lots of temporary staff.”

He added that council chiefs had already met unions over the move.

Unison branch secretary Mike Tucker said around 30 staff were currently on the council’s redeployment register.

He said: “We would support the process where as the number of redundancies increases the number of temporary staff reduces to create vacancies for staff facing redundancy.”

But he said Unison was not in favour of “wholesale” temporary staff cuts.

Labour plans to bring in a fuller version of the scheme, including an internal employment agency, next year.

The announcement of the job cuts was criticised by opposition parties who questioned whether it was logical to put people into new roles of which they have no experience.

Opposition Tory finance spokesman councillor John Hannides said: “Temporary staff are being treated like second-class citizens. They are effectively paying for Labour’s redeployment plan.”

Tory leader Royston Smith said some of the temporary staff had worked for the council for seven years and accused Labour of not worrying about them because they are not unionised.

“After everything Labour promised in the run up to the local election they are content to sacrifice social workers, Sure Start assistants and bin men.

“They have mislead council workers and the public and this is just the beginning.”

The council employs around 240 temps. Cllr Letts said those who have been working for the council for more than two years, understood to be around 25, would be offered permanent contracts. Others would not have thier contracts renewed.

  • Additional reporting by Matt Smith

Comments (120)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:51am Tue 18 Sep 12

Linesman says...

The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.
The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant. Linesman
  • Score: 0

11:52am Tue 18 Sep 12

nedscrumpo says...

It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff! nedscrumpo
  • Score: 0

11:53am Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
[quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:59am Tue 18 Sep 12

Ford Prefect says...

I think the clue is in the name "temporary". If your job has that title then you can have no realistic hope that it's permanent. All companies do this. If permanent staff were required they should have been recruited as such.

Royston Smith's hypocrisy knows no bounds. If these staff have genuinely been with the Council for seven years then they will have acquired employment rights. But, if they have, the question has to be asked why didn't Councillor Smith give them permanent contracts when he ran the council?

The coalition in Westminster keeps telling us that we must have more flexible labour markets (that is, hire and fire at will) and tempoarry contracts are part of that scenario. It's one thing needing people for a specific short-term task and it's another just fiddling the job so as to keep permanent staff numbers down. It seems a bit rich for a Co9nservative to be complaining about government policy. Does George Osborne know?
I think the clue is in the name "temporary". If your job has that title then you can have no realistic hope that it's permanent. All companies do this. If permanent staff were required they should have been recruited as such. Royston Smith's hypocrisy knows no bounds. If these staff have genuinely been with the Council for seven years then they will have acquired employment rights. But, if they have, the question has to be asked why didn't Councillor Smith give them permanent contracts when he ran the council? The coalition in Westminster keeps telling us that we must have more flexible labour markets (that is, hire and fire at will) and tempoarry contracts are part of that scenario. It's one thing needing people for a specific short-term task and it's another just fiddling the job so as to keep permanent staff numbers down. It seems a bit rich for a Co9nservative to be complaining about government policy. Does George Osborne know? Ford Prefect
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Quite Frankly says...

I don't think we need any lessons from Royston, do we?
I don't think we need any lessons from Royston, do we? Quite Frankly
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Tue 18 Sep 12

lisa whitemore says...

doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!! lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

You bl++dy hypocrites!
I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans.
we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses.
then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary?
The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them?
If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ?
Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now?
On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council?
We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO
You bl++dy hypocrites! I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans. we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses. then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary? The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them? If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ? Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now? On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council? We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Tue 18 Sep 12

bigfella777 says...

How can temporary staff have worked for the council for 7 years? It shows you how inept these degree jockeys are.
I bet you if you got all the manual workers to run the civic centre and bombed all those limp wristed spongers out to do a bit of graft, things would improve.
How can temporary staff have worked for the council for 7 years? It shows you how inept these degree jockeys are. I bet you if you got all the manual workers to run the civic centre and bombed all those limp wristed spongers out to do a bit of graft, things would improve. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Maine Lobster says...

Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Maine Lobster says...

Quite Frankly wrote:
I don't think we need any lessons from Royston, do we?
I think the only lesson is to be learned FROM Royston Smith. If you run the Council the way he did, you will get voted out!
[quote][p][bold]Quite Frankly[/bold] wrote: I don't think we need any lessons from Royston, do we?[/p][/quote]I think the only lesson is to be learned FROM Royston Smith. If you run the Council the way he did, you will get voted out! Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Although nobody should be fooled by crocodile tears of Cllr. Smith led Tories, the start of jobs cull by NuLabour under Cllr. Williams The Dear Leader only proves that serious concerns expressed by some of us about Milliband's local mob befor May elections were true.

For fooling the people one party may be using the brand name Conservative and other abuse the good name of Labour BUT IN REALITY the real Tories and 'Virtual Tories' of NuLabour are two sides of the same coin... Workers and ordinary people's parasites.

When in opposition they both fool people by pretending to be saints and when in power start behaving worse than even that evil woman Thatcher.

Both cut jobs and destroy ordinary people's services.

Even when trade unions like old T&G used to operate like what a union should be, to look after workers interest, the 'Sweet Hearts Associations' like NALGO and NUPE which now has become Unison were fairly useless, and pretending to be reincarnated Trotsky, Mike Tucker was even worse example of those unions. So I am not surprised about his quoted garbage.

Now like most other big unions T&G has not only rebranded itself as Unite, it has also become a big business like Unison and many others.

People on top of unions may be paying lip service to the cause of workers, like they did at Brighton only last week. But in reality they are also enjoying exceptionally high wages and perks just like bosses of big business. Only difference is that business leaders look after and finance their puppet the nasty Tory Party and Union Leaders abuse their position by looking after their mates in Milliband's 'Virtual Tory' Mob otherwise known as NuLabour.

Unless the workers wake up and start voting against likes of Tucker at local level and stop their national leaders from donating millions of their hard earned pounds to people's parasites and workers enemy, the NuLabour, they will not only keep on losing their working conditions but also the actual jobs.

And if we the people really care for our services we should also join up with the actual grass root workers and stop voting for the same bird of prey called Conservative with two wings one Lib-Dem and other NuLabour.

Otherwise live to regret.
Although nobody should be fooled by crocodile tears of Cllr. Smith led Tories, the start of jobs cull by NuLabour under Cllr. Williams The Dear Leader only proves that serious concerns expressed by some of us about Milliband's local mob befor May elections were true. For fooling the people one party may be using the brand name Conservative and other abuse the good name of Labour BUT IN REALITY the real Tories and 'Virtual Tories' of NuLabour are two sides of the same coin... Workers and ordinary people's parasites. When in opposition they both fool people by pretending to be saints and when in power start behaving worse than even that evil woman Thatcher. Both cut jobs and destroy ordinary people's services. Even when trade unions like old T&G used to operate like what a union should be, to look after workers interest, the 'Sweet Hearts Associations' like NALGO and NUPE which now has become Unison were fairly useless, and pretending to be reincarnated Trotsky, Mike Tucker was even worse example of those unions. So I am not surprised about his quoted garbage. Now like most other big unions T&G has not only rebranded itself as Unite, it has also become a big business like Unison and many others. People on top of unions may be paying lip service to the cause of workers, like they did at Brighton only last week. But in reality they are also enjoying exceptionally high wages and perks just like bosses of big business. Only difference is that business leaders look after and finance their puppet the nasty Tory Party and Union Leaders abuse their position by looking after their mates in Milliband's 'Virtual Tory' Mob otherwise known as NuLabour. Unless the workers wake up and start voting against likes of Tucker at local level and stop their national leaders from donating millions of their hard earned pounds to people's parasites and workers enemy, the NuLabour, they will not only keep on losing their working conditions but also the actual jobs. And if we the people really care for our services we should also join up with the actual grass root workers and stop voting for the same bird of prey called Conservative with two wings one Lib-Dem and other NuLabour. Otherwise live to regret. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Collectively we the citizens must accept our part in this unholy mess.

After all it is us who either voted for these councillors or made their election possible by staying away on election day.

So many self serving ego driven men and women got elected. Most of them have conveniently forgotten that they should be serving the people but have become puppets of highly paid pen pushers or rubber stamps in Fat Cats hands.

We may have changed parties in power but not the evil nasty and vicious agenda of so called officers.
Collectively we the citizens must accept our part in this unholy mess. After all it is us who either voted for these councillors or made their election possible by staying away on election day. So many self serving ego driven men and women got elected. Most of them have conveniently forgotten that they should be serving the people but have become puppets of highly paid pen pushers or rubber stamps in Fat Cats hands. We may have changed parties in power but not the evil nasty and vicious agenda of so called officers. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.
You have figures to back this claim up, I presume.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.[/p][/quote]You have figures to back this claim up, I presume. Georgem
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Tue 18 Sep 12

UTS says...

The price you pay for selfish Union workers only interested in themselves.
The price you pay for selfish Union workers only interested in themselves. UTS
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Shoong says...

Linesman wrote:
The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.
Very silly of you - that's from a different budget. Change the record.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.[/p][/quote]Very silly of you - that's from a different budget. Change the record. Shoong
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Independent Thought says...

Unfortunately losing 200 temporary staff only makes a small dent in the overall £42m deficit.

My fear is that there will be a lot more jobs that will need to go in order to balance the books.

We will see the true scale of the cuts when the 2013/14 budget comes out for consultation later this year.
Unfortunately losing 200 temporary staff only makes a small dent in the overall £42m deficit. My fear is that there will be a lot more jobs that will need to go in order to balance the books. We will see the true scale of the cuts when the 2013/14 budget comes out for consultation later this year. Independent Thought
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Torchie1 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
How can temporary staff have worked for the council for 7 years? It shows you how inept these degree jockeys are.
I bet you if you got all the manual workers to run the civic centre and bombed all those limp wristed spongers out to do a bit of graft, things would improve.
I've no doubt you are correct that things would improve for the council employees, but would the people of Southampton be happy to watch their Council Tax spiral upwards to pay for it?
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: How can temporary staff have worked for the council for 7 years? It shows you how inept these degree jockeys are. I bet you if you got all the manual workers to run the civic centre and bombed all those limp wristed spongers out to do a bit of graft, things would improve.[/p][/quote]I've no doubt you are correct that things would improve for the council employees, but would the people of Southampton be happy to watch their Council Tax spiral upwards to pay for it? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

"The Labour -run council plans to sacrifice temporary workers to find positions for permanent employees facing the axe."

Should read The Labour -run council plans to sacrificebn Temporary and Part Timers to find positions for full timer permanent employees facing the axe
"The Labour -run council plans to sacrifice temporary workers to find positions for permanent employees facing the axe." Should read The Labour -run council plans to sacrificebn Temporary and Part Timers to find positions for full timer permanent employees facing the axe southy
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money. southy
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Shoong says...

Georgem wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.
You have figures to back this claim up, I presume.
Don't be silly.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.[/p][/quote]You have figures to back this claim up, I presume.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly. Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
[quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections. southy
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please. Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Stephen J says...

"...mislead..." Misled?
"...mislead..." Misled? Stephen J
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Graeme Harrison says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments. Graeme Harrison
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Graeme Harrison wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments.
Not from SCC that is down to the agency to pay them redundancy and the angency are more likely to move them to another location than pay redandancy unlees there is a one off agreement with SCC and the Agency concered
[quote][p][bold]Graeme Harrison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments.[/p][/quote]Not from SCC that is down to the agency to pay them redundancy and the angency are more likely to move them to another location than pay redandancy unlees there is a one off agreement with SCC and the Agency concered southy
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Tue 18 Sep 12

shirley-bill says...

Does any one know were the staff are going on the toll bridge ? The new toll machines start soon , so are the staff part of the 200 that will lose they jobs?
Does any one know were the staff are going on the toll bridge ? The new toll machines start soon , so are the staff part of the 200 that will lose they jobs? shirley-bill
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference southy
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Tue 18 Sep 12

CyberWarrior says...

Hyprocrisy in it's purest form and the most Tory biased reporting you'll see anywhere. It would be funny, were it not so disgraceful!
Hyprocrisy in it's purest form and the most Tory biased reporting you'll see anywhere. It would be funny, were it not so disgraceful! CyberWarrior
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Independent Thought wrote:
Unfortunately losing 200 temporary staff only makes a small dent in the overall £42m deficit.

My fear is that there will be a lot more jobs that will need to go in order to balance the books.

We will see the true scale of the cuts when the 2013/14 budget comes out for consultation later this year.
Your fear is the shape of things to come.

Simon Letts who even I thought was bit of a socialist has become NuLabourite (Yes we all do mistakes some times, but I still think he is a good ward councillor) will be the axe man, will be chopping jobs and making bonfire of our services soon.

Because pen pushers will keep on advising him to do so, rather than confronting the government in London that has made the life of local government very difficult through financial controls.
[quote][p][bold]Independent Thought[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately losing 200 temporary staff only makes a small dent in the overall £42m deficit. My fear is that there will be a lot more jobs that will need to go in order to balance the books. We will see the true scale of the cuts when the 2013/14 budget comes out for consultation later this year.[/p][/quote]Your fear is the shape of things to come. Simon Letts who even I thought was bit of a socialist has become NuLabourite (Yes we all do mistakes some times, but I still think he is a good ward councillor) will be the axe man, will be chopping jobs and making bonfire of our services soon. Because pen pushers will keep on advising him to do so, rather than confronting the government in London that has made the life of local government very difficult through financial controls. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else. Shoong
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
"All other parties"
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]"All other parties" Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
Southy, you are still yet to demonstrate HOW the TUSC would achieve all of this. All you've ever come up with is a few vague definitions of words like 'cuts'. What's needed - and impossible for you to obtain, let alone provide - are solid numbers to back your claim. Without that, it's empty promises all the way down.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]Southy, you are still yet to demonstrate HOW the TUSC would achieve all of this. All you've ever come up with is a few vague definitions of words like 'cuts'. What's needed - and impossible for you to obtain, let alone provide - are solid numbers to back your claim. Without that, it's empty promises all the way down. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives? Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn. southy
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?
The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?[/p][/quote]The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job. southy
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?
The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job.
So you agree that redundancy payments are not the only difference. Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?[/p][/quote]The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job.[/p][/quote]So you agree that redundancy payments are not the only difference. Thanks. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
Southy, you are still yet to demonstrate HOW the TUSC would achieve all of this. All you've ever come up with is a few vague definitions of words like 'cuts'. What's needed - and impossible for you to obtain, let alone provide - are solid numbers to back your claim. Without that, it's empty promises all the way down.
No empty promises we are not into those, I don't know if it still there but it was expained in the City TUSC manifest web site, probley would have to search for it very deep now.
any way you sustain the job levels the local economy would start to stable, you add jobs and the local economy would improve, Cut jobs and wages then the local economy will suffer more and take a fall.
Its jobs that will improve or slump the economy less there are unemployed more people will spend in the economy, the more unemployed the less is spent in a economy.
And as the Right Wing Political partys are hell bent on cutting services, wages and jobs will result only in one thing a bigger dip in the economy.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]Southy, you are still yet to demonstrate HOW the TUSC would achieve all of this. All you've ever come up with is a few vague definitions of words like 'cuts'. What's needed - and impossible for you to obtain, let alone provide - are solid numbers to back your claim. Without that, it's empty promises all the way down.[/p][/quote]No empty promises we are not into those, I don't know if it still there but it was expained in the City TUSC manifest web site, probley would have to search for it very deep now. any way you sustain the job levels the local economy would start to stable, you add jobs and the local economy would improve, Cut jobs and wages then the local economy will suffer more and take a fall. Its jobs that will improve or slump the economy less there are unemployed more people will spend in the economy, the more unemployed the less is spent in a economy. And as the Right Wing Political partys are hell bent on cutting services, wages and jobs will result only in one thing a bigger dip in the economy. southy
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?
The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job.
So you agree that redundancy payments are not the only difference. Thanks.
No but they are the biggest differences and the most costliest.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?[/p][/quote]The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job.[/p][/quote]So you agree that redundancy payments are not the only difference. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No but they are the biggest differences and the most costliest. southy
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?
The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job.
So you agree that redundancy payments are not the only difference. Thanks.
No but they are the biggest differences and the most costliest.
Costliest to whom?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?[/p][/quote]The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job.[/p][/quote]So you agree that redundancy payments are not the only difference. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No but they are the biggest differences and the most costliest.[/p][/quote]Costliest to whom? Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
Southy, you are still yet to demonstrate HOW the TUSC would achieve all of this. All you've ever come up with is a few vague definitions of words like 'cuts'. What's needed - and impossible for you to obtain, let alone provide - are solid numbers to back your claim. Without that, it's empty promises all the way down.
No empty promises we are not into those, I don't know if it still there but it was expained in the City TUSC manifest web site, probley would have to search for it very deep now.
any way you sustain the job levels the local economy would start to stable, you add jobs and the local economy would improve, Cut jobs and wages then the local economy will suffer more and take a fall.
Its jobs that will improve or slump the economy less there are unemployed more people will spend in the economy, the more unemployed the less is spent in a economy.
And as the Right Wing Political partys are hell bent on cutting services, wages and jobs will result only in one thing a bigger dip in the economy.
This would the the vagueness I mentioned.

Numbers, please, or this is indeed just empty promise. By definition.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]Southy, you are still yet to demonstrate HOW the TUSC would achieve all of this. All you've ever come up with is a few vague definitions of words like 'cuts'. What's needed - and impossible for you to obtain, let alone provide - are solid numbers to back your claim. Without that, it's empty promises all the way down.[/p][/quote]No empty promises we are not into those, I don't know if it still there but it was expained in the City TUSC manifest web site, probley would have to search for it very deep now. any way you sustain the job levels the local economy would start to stable, you add jobs and the local economy would improve, Cut jobs and wages then the local economy will suffer more and take a fall. Its jobs that will improve or slump the economy less there are unemployed more people will spend in the economy, the more unemployed the less is spent in a economy. And as the Right Wing Political partys are hell bent on cutting services, wages and jobs will result only in one thing a bigger dip in the economy.[/p][/quote]This would the the vagueness I mentioned. Numbers, please, or this is indeed just empty promise. By definition. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
You bl++dy hypocrites!
I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans.
we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses.
then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary?
The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them?
If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ?
Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now?
On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council?
We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO
Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts.

How many paying customers visited yesterday?

My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: You bl++dy hypocrites! I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans. we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses. then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary? The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them? If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ? Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now? On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council? We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO[/p][/quote]Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts. How many paying customers visited yesterday? My betting is that they did not cover the running costs. Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Linesman says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.
It is the agency that they work for that rakes in the cash, I doubt whether they pass on much more than the minimum rate. People work for agencies because they can pick and choose the times that they work.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.[/p][/quote]It is the agency that they work for that rakes in the cash, I doubt whether they pass on much more than the minimum rate. People work for agencies because they can pick and choose the times that they work. Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power.
Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power. Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool. southy
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power.
Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.
Predictable nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power. Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.[/p][/quote]Predictable nonsense. Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
You bl++dy hypocrites!
I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans.
we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses.
then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary?
The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them?
If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ?
Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now?
On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council?
We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO
Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts.

How many paying customers visited yesterday?

My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.
Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses.
the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate.
the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: You bl++dy hypocrites! I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans. we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses. then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary? The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them? If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ? Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now? On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council? We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO[/p][/quote]Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts. How many paying customers visited yesterday? My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.[/p][/quote]Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses. the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate. the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?
The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job.
So you agree that redundancy payments are not the only difference. Thanks.
No but they are the biggest differences and the most costliest.
Costliest to whom?
Who as got to pay redundancy as in this case SCC, but Agency workers will not get it, unless it was drawn up in the contract to do so, SCC pays the agency extra in fees to cover sick NI holidays and so they don't have to worrie about getting rid of people and the admin that comes with redundancy, having agency workers in for more than a mth in a year is a cop-out, the losers are the agency workers.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]That's far from the only difference. Do these agency workers get holiday and sick pay from the end client? Is the council paying employers NI contributions on them? What about employer liability insurance? Do they get pensions? Do they get health insurance? What is the HR expenditure per capita? How much time do they spend doing non-work activities, such as meetings with line managers to discuss career options and objectives?[/p][/quote]The Contracting agency gets NI from the contractors, as Sick benefit and holiday leave that become part of the agreement contract some will and some will not all will depend on the job.[/p][/quote]So you agree that redundancy payments are not the only difference. Thanks.[/p][/quote]No but they are the biggest differences and the most costliest.[/p][/quote]Costliest to whom?[/p][/quote]Who as got to pay redundancy as in this case SCC, but Agency workers will not get it, unless it was drawn up in the contract to do so, SCC pays the agency extra in fees to cover sick NI holidays and so they don't have to worrie about getting rid of people and the admin that comes with redundancy, having agency workers in for more than a mth in a year is a cop-out, the losers are the agency workers. southy
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
You bl++dy hypocrites!
I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans.
we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses.
then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary?
The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them?
If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ?
Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now?
On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council?
We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO
Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts.

How many paying customers visited yesterday?

My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.
Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses.
the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate.
the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument
And a big loan, The cuts in services and jobs between Labour and Tory are about the same.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: You bl++dy hypocrites! I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans. we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses. then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary? The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them? If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ? Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now? On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council? We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO[/p][/quote]Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts. How many paying customers visited yesterday? My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.[/p][/quote]Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses. the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate. the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument[/p][/quote]And a big loan, The cuts in services and jobs between Labour and Tory are about the same. southy
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Can't you see the left now squirming?
Under the Tory councils wages for those over £17,500 later revised in negotiations to those over £22,000 would take pay cuts starting at 2% going up to 5.5% the same rate the Tory & Liberal councillors took in a pay cut.
the whole reason was to secure weekly bin collections & save jobs.
We heard our Leader say 1-10 refuse jobs to go & fortnightly collections then he accused the Echo of lying?
We warned you then Workers beware but were called all sorts of names.
Royston made no lies he said a figure of job losses which would be made up by temps & voluntary redundancies & then after negotiations with the unions A figure agreed with unions of compulsory redundancies was said.
At no time did he say no redundancies did he?
You have all been lead up the garden path by the Labour Party & the Unions.
Refuse workers if you haven't voted yet then I hope you see you've been conned & vote against the Union & council proposal & get another Union officer(s).
I can see this being far worse as Williams did say 1,500 permanent posts would go on top of Temporary posts so this is the tip of the Iceberg.
Can't you see the left now squirming? Under the Tory councils wages for those over £17,500 later revised in negotiations to those over £22,000 would take pay cuts starting at 2% going up to 5.5% the same rate the Tory & Liberal councillors took in a pay cut. the whole reason was to secure weekly bin collections & save jobs. We heard our Leader say 1-10 refuse jobs to go & fortnightly collections then he accused the Echo of lying? We warned you then Workers beware but were called all sorts of names. Royston made no lies he said a figure of job losses which would be made up by temps & voluntary redundancies & then after negotiations with the unions A figure agreed with unions of compulsory redundancies was said. At no time did he say no redundancies did he? You have all been lead up the garden path by the Labour Party & the Unions. Refuse workers if you haven't voted yet then I hope you see you've been conned & vote against the Union & council proposal & get another Union officer(s). I can see this being far worse as Williams did say 1,500 permanent posts would go on top of Temporary posts so this is the tip of the Iceberg. loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power.
Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.
Predictable nonsense.
Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power. Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.[/p][/quote]Predictable nonsense.[/p][/quote]Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand southy
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
You bl++dy hypocrites!
I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans.
we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses.
then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary?
The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them?
If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ?
Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now?
On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council?
We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO
Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts.

How many paying customers visited yesterday?

My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.
Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses.
the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate.
the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument
No need to be abusive. I know that it is not pleasant when you are reminded of mistakes made by the administration that you supported but, whether you like it or not, the Sea City Museum was NOT (R) WHOLLY FUNDED BY A LOTTERY GRANT & OTHERS.

As with all other lottery grants, the recipients have to put up a percentage of the cost of what has to be funded, and no Royston's Folly was no exception.

Royston did the deal, leaving those that followed him to pay the price, and what we are seing now is part of the price that has to be paid.

You constantly bellyache about Labour leaving a note to say that there was no money in the safe.

Royston did not even leave a note.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: You bl++dy hypocrites! I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans. we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses. then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary? The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them? If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ? Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now? On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council? We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO[/p][/quote]Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts. How many paying customers visited yesterday? My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.[/p][/quote]Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses. the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate. the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument[/p][/quote]No need to be abusive. I know that it is not pleasant when you are reminded of mistakes made by the administration that you supported but, whether you like it or not, the Sea City Museum was NOT (R) WHOLLY FUNDED BY A LOTTERY GRANT & OTHERS. As with all other lottery grants, the recipients have to put up a percentage of the cost of what has to be funded, and no Royston's Folly was no exception. Royston did the deal, leaving those that followed him to pay the price, and what we are seing now is part of the price that has to be paid. You constantly bellyache about Labour leaving a note to say that there was no money in the safe. Royston did not even leave a note. Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Can't you see the left now squirming?
Under the Tory councils wages for those over £17,500 later revised in negotiations to those over £22,000 would take pay cuts starting at 2% going up to 5.5% the same rate the Tory & Liberal councillors took in a pay cut.
the whole reason was to secure weekly bin collections & save jobs.
We heard our Leader say 1-10 refuse jobs to go & fortnightly collections then he accused the Echo of lying?
We warned you then Workers beware but were called all sorts of names.
Royston made no lies he said a figure of job losses which would be made up by temps & voluntary redundancies & then after negotiations with the unions A figure agreed with unions of compulsory redundancies was said.
At no time did he say no redundancies did he?
You have all been lead up the garden path by the Labour Party & the Unions.
Refuse workers if you haven't voted yet then I hope you see you've been conned & vote against the Union & council proposal & get another Union officer(s).
I can see this being far worse as Williams did say 1,500 permanent posts would go on top of Temporary posts so this is the tip of the Iceberg.
Labour is not left they are as right wing as the torys, Torys said they would save 400 jobs but what they did not tell you was that there would still be around 1,500 job loses, there was only 1 million difference in savings for each year over the next 4 years between Labour and Torys, The torys was going to do the hit as quickly as they could, Labour was going to do it slowly but at a very small amount less cost
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Can't you see the left now squirming? Under the Tory councils wages for those over £17,500 later revised in negotiations to those over £22,000 would take pay cuts starting at 2% going up to 5.5% the same rate the Tory & Liberal councillors took in a pay cut. the whole reason was to secure weekly bin collections & save jobs. We heard our Leader say 1-10 refuse jobs to go & fortnightly collections then he accused the Echo of lying? We warned you then Workers beware but were called all sorts of names. Royston made no lies he said a figure of job losses which would be made up by temps & voluntary redundancies & then after negotiations with the unions A figure agreed with unions of compulsory redundancies was said. At no time did he say no redundancies did he? You have all been lead up the garden path by the Labour Party & the Unions. Refuse workers if you haven't voted yet then I hope you see you've been conned & vote against the Union & council proposal & get another Union officer(s). I can see this being far worse as Williams did say 1,500 permanent posts would go on top of Temporary posts so this is the tip of the Iceberg.[/p][/quote]Labour is not left they are as right wing as the torys, Torys said they would save 400 jobs but what they did not tell you was that there would still be around 1,500 job loses, there was only 1 million difference in savings for each year over the next 4 years between Labour and Torys, The torys was going to do the hit as quickly as they could, Labour was going to do it slowly but at a very small amount less cost southy
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
You bl++dy hypocrites!
I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans.
we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses.
then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary?
The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them?
If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ?
Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now?
On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council?
We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO
Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts.

How many paying customers visited yesterday?

My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.
Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses.
the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate.
the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument
No need to be abusive. I know that it is not pleasant when you are reminded of mistakes made by the administration that you supported but, whether you like it or not, the Sea City Museum was NOT (R) WHOLLY FUNDED BY A LOTTERY GRANT & OTHERS.

As with all other lottery grants, the recipients have to put up a percentage of the cost of what has to be funded, and no Royston's Folly was no exception.

Royston did the deal, leaving those that followed him to pay the price, and what we are seing now is part of the price that has to be paid.

You constantly bellyache about Labour leaving a note to say that there was no money in the safe.

Royston did not even leave a note.
Once again monies received from selling Millbrook Ind.Est. went to paying for the build & I remember you & others kicking up about that.
Now tell me does a 2% pay cut on £22,000 sound worse than no job at all?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: You bl++dy hypocrites! I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans. we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses. then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary? The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them? If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ? Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now? On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council? We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO[/p][/quote]Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts. How many paying customers visited yesterday? My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.[/p][/quote]Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses. the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate. the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument[/p][/quote]No need to be abusive. I know that it is not pleasant when you are reminded of mistakes made by the administration that you supported but, whether you like it or not, the Sea City Museum was NOT (R) WHOLLY FUNDED BY A LOTTERY GRANT & OTHERS. As with all other lottery grants, the recipients have to put up a percentage of the cost of what has to be funded, and no Royston's Folly was no exception. Royston did the deal, leaving those that followed him to pay the price, and what we are seing now is part of the price that has to be paid. You constantly bellyache about Labour leaving a note to say that there was no money in the safe. Royston did not even leave a note.[/p][/quote]Once again monies received from selling Millbrook Ind.Est. went to paying for the build & I remember you & others kicking up about that. Now tell me does a 2% pay cut on £22,000 sound worse than no job at all? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power.
Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.
Predictable nonsense.
Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand
So where does Fascism sit?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power. Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.[/p][/quote]Predictable nonsense.[/p][/quote]Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand[/p][/quote]So where does Fascism sit? Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Tue 18 Sep 12

aldermoorboy says...

Tories did not cut jobs Labour did.
Tories did not close Oaklands swimming pool, Labour did.
Vote TORY in 2014 for the honest party.
Tories did not cut jobs Labour did. Tories did not close Oaklands swimming pool, Labour did. Vote TORY in 2014 for the honest party. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Can't you see the left now squirming?
Under the Tory councils wages for those over £17,500 later revised in negotiations to those over £22,000 would take pay cuts starting at 2% going up to 5.5% the same rate the Tory & Liberal councillors took in a pay cut.
the whole reason was to secure weekly bin collections & save jobs.
We heard our Leader say 1-10 refuse jobs to go & fortnightly collections then he accused the Echo of lying?
We warned you then Workers beware but were called all sorts of names.
Royston made no lies he said a figure of job losses which would be made up by temps & voluntary redundancies & then after negotiations with the unions A figure agreed with unions of compulsory redundancies was said.
At no time did he say no redundancies did he?
You have all been lead up the garden path by the Labour Party & the Unions.
Refuse workers if you haven't voted yet then I hope you see you've been conned & vote against the Union & council proposal & get another Union officer(s).
I can see this being far worse as Williams did say 1,500 permanent posts would go on top of Temporary posts so this is the tip of the Iceberg.
Labour is not left they are as right wing as the torys, Torys said they would save 400 jobs but what they did not tell you was that there would still be around 1,500 job loses, there was only 1 million difference in savings for each year over the next 4 years between Labour and Torys, The torys was going to do the hit as quickly as they could, Labour was going to do it slowly but at a very small amount less cost
For once Southy why not rip into a council that's only just started to show it's hand & show that 200 is a small figure to what will come as they did say all temps would go & then 1,500 permanent jobs would go or are you so set on having a go at the Tories you can't see a golden opportunity to gain votes for your party from Labour?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Can't you see the left now squirming? Under the Tory councils wages for those over £17,500 later revised in negotiations to those over £22,000 would take pay cuts starting at 2% going up to 5.5% the same rate the Tory & Liberal councillors took in a pay cut. the whole reason was to secure weekly bin collections & save jobs. We heard our Leader say 1-10 refuse jobs to go & fortnightly collections then he accused the Echo of lying? We warned you then Workers beware but were called all sorts of names. Royston made no lies he said a figure of job losses which would be made up by temps & voluntary redundancies & then after negotiations with the unions A figure agreed with unions of compulsory redundancies was said. At no time did he say no redundancies did he? You have all been lead up the garden path by the Labour Party & the Unions. Refuse workers if you haven't voted yet then I hope you see you've been conned & vote against the Union & council proposal & get another Union officer(s). I can see this being far worse as Williams did say 1,500 permanent posts would go on top of Temporary posts so this is the tip of the Iceberg.[/p][/quote]Labour is not left they are as right wing as the torys, Torys said they would save 400 jobs but what they did not tell you was that there would still be around 1,500 job loses, there was only 1 million difference in savings for each year over the next 4 years between Labour and Torys, The torys was going to do the hit as quickly as they could, Labour was going to do it slowly but at a very small amount less cost[/p][/quote]For once Southy why not rip into a council that's only just started to show it's hand & show that 200 is a small figure to what will come as they did say all temps would go & then 1,500 permanent jobs would go or are you so set on having a go at the Tories you can't see a golden opportunity to gain votes for your party from Labour? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

I was called a liar I was called Southy so please where's my apologise?
Everything I've said has come true now we have to fight to stop this Barmy Williams Labour council
I was called a liar I was called Southy so please where's my apologise? Everything I've said has come true now we have to fight to stop this Barmy Williams Labour council loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power.
Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.
Predictable nonsense.
Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand
So where does Fascism sit?
Extreme far right wing and you all ready know that.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power. Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.[/p][/quote]Predictable nonsense.[/p][/quote]Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand[/p][/quote]So where does Fascism sit?[/p][/quote]Extreme far right wing and you all ready know that. southy
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power.
Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.
Predictable nonsense.
Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand
So where does Fascism sit?
Extreme far right wing and you all ready know that.
Ah, but opinion on that matter is very much divided. In fact, many argue that the arrival of fascism was what caused a simple left/right spectrum to become inadequate.

"This conflict must not be allowed to cancel out all our achievements of the past eighteen years, nor, more importantly, extinguish the hope of a Third Alternative held out by Fascism to mankind fettered between the pillar of capitalist slavery and the post of Marxist chaos. The proponents of these obsolete doctrines must understand that the Fascist sword has been unsheathed twice before, in Ethiopia and in Spain, with known results."

—Benito Mussolini, 1940

See that? Fascism opposes capitalism. Yet they are both "right wing" positions. How can this be?

Or do you know more about fascism than Mussolini?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power. Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.[/p][/quote]Predictable nonsense.[/p][/quote]Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand[/p][/quote]So where does Fascism sit?[/p][/quote]Extreme far right wing and you all ready know that.[/p][/quote]Ah, but opinion on that matter is very much divided. In fact, many argue that the arrival of fascism was what caused a simple left/right spectrum to become inadequate. "This conflict must not be allowed to cancel out all our achievements of the past eighteen years, nor, more importantly, extinguish the hope of a Third Alternative held out by Fascism to mankind fettered between the pillar of capitalist slavery and the post of Marxist chaos. The proponents of these obsolete doctrines must understand that the Fascist sword has been unsheathed twice before, in Ethiopia and in Spain, with known results." —Benito Mussolini, 1940 See that? Fascism opposes capitalism. Yet they are both "right wing" positions. How can this be? Or do you know more about fascism than Mussolini? Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power.
Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.
Predictable nonsense.
Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand
So where does Fascism sit?
Extreme far right wing and you all ready know that.
Funny I thought you could have fascists in religion or is that fanatics?
So Southy what do you call a leader who lies tells his cabinet member to lie & then orders his party to back him?
Isn't the word Dictator & doesn't that smack of fascism of the left ?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power. Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.[/p][/quote]Predictable nonsense.[/p][/quote]Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand[/p][/quote]So where does Fascism sit?[/p][/quote]Extreme far right wing and you all ready know that.[/p][/quote]Funny I thought you could have fascists in religion or is that fanatics? So Southy what do you call a leader who lies tells his cabinet member to lie & then orders his party to back him? Isn't the word Dictator & doesn't that smack of fascism of the left ? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Another thing about Right wing aka Capitalism its a War monger Machine.
Another thing about Right wing aka Capitalism its a War monger Machine. southy
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Tue 18 Sep 12

aldermoorboy says...

Why aren't the Unions on strike 200 losing their jobs, plus 30 at Oaklands?
Bin men came out on strike for no job loses and no salary cuts for them ( infact under the Tories they would have got a rise).
Last year was A POLITICAL STRIKE and it worked Labour back in power. I hope the ordinary people of Southampton realise this and vote Tory in 2014 for a party that cares for all the people in Southampton.
In my view this town would be better off if it was not ruled by Labour/militant union leaders.
Why aren't the Unions on strike 200 losing their jobs, plus 30 at Oaklands? Bin men came out on strike for no job loses and no salary cuts for them ( infact under the Tories they would have got a rise). Last year was A POLITICAL STRIKE and it worked Labour back in power. I hope the ordinary people of Southampton realise this and vote Tory in 2014 for a party that cares for all the people in Southampton. In my view this town would be better off if it was not ruled by Labour/militant union leaders. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

loosehead said Funny I thought you could have fascists in religion or is that fanatics?
So Southy what do you call a leader who lies tells his cabinet member to lie & then orders his party to back him?
Isn't the word Dictator & doesn't that smack of fascism of the left ?

It smacks of Dictatorship all right, And I take it your refering to Right Wing Labour, who have the same traits as the Torys now where labour as move so far right wing, they are having to do what the Torys have all ways done just to gain vote, and that is try to pretend that they are all for the ordinary people when they are not, they just want to rob the ordinary people.
loosehead said Funny I thought you could have fascists in religion or is that fanatics? So Southy what do you call a leader who lies tells his cabinet member to lie & then orders his party to back him? Isn't the word Dictator & doesn't that smack of fascism of the left ? It smacks of Dictatorship all right, And I take it your refering to Right Wing Labour, who have the same traits as the Torys now where labour as move so far right wing, they are having to do what the Torys have all ways done just to gain vote, and that is try to pretend that they are all for the ordinary people when they are not, they just want to rob the ordinary people. southy
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Another thing about Right wing aka Capitalism its a War monger Machine.
For goodness sake, southy, this is comic book rhetoric.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Another thing about Right wing aka Capitalism its a War monger Machine.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake, southy, this is comic book rhetoric. Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Southy,

Some time it is difficult to follow your logic.

Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex.

Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not.

Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews?

Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis.

Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government.

Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax.

That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country.

Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government.

Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts.

Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.
Southy, Some time it is difficult to follow your logic. Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex. Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not. Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews? Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis. Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government. Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax. That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country. Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government. Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts. Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Another thing about Right wing aka Capitalism its a War monger Machine.
For goodness sake, southy, this is comic book rhetoric.
thats why its being going lately, the envy of another country wealth. and why the uk is involved in 2 wars, and causing proplems for other world governments that will not play ball. its capitalism rhetoric
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Another thing about Right wing aka Capitalism its a War monger Machine.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake, southy, this is comic book rhetoric.[/p][/quote]thats why its being going lately, the envy of another country wealth. and why the uk is involved in 2 wars, and causing proplems for other world governments that will not play ball. its capitalism rhetoric southy
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Tue 18 Sep 12

aldermoorboy says...

Southy, I was listening to a BBC4 programme this week on life in East Germany under a socialist government after the second world war, it was horrific.
I turned off after hearing a woman's screams before she was executed.
I am sure you are a nice guy as are many on here, but socialist states have a very bad record in practice, give me CARING TORIES anytime.
Southy, I was listening to a BBC4 programme this week on life in East Germany under a socialist government after the second world war, it was horrific. I turned off after hearing a woman's screams before she was executed. I am sure you are a nice guy as are many on here, but socialist states have a very bad record in practice, give me CARING TORIES anytime. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Another thing about Right wing aka Capitalism its a War monger Machine.
For goodness sake, southy, this is comic book rhetoric.
thats why its being going lately, the envy of another country wealth. and why the uk is involved in 2 wars, and causing proplems for other world governments that will not play ball. its capitalism rhetoric
I don't think you understand what 'rhetoric' means.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, and I fail to see how you can possibly refute it with a straight face, that simply branding ideals left-wing or right-wing, is simply no longer adequate. Saying "capitalism AKA right-wing" or any such variant is irrelevant.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Another thing about Right wing aka Capitalism its a War monger Machine.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake, southy, this is comic book rhetoric.[/p][/quote]thats why its being going lately, the envy of another country wealth. and why the uk is involved in 2 wars, and causing proplems for other world governments that will not play ball. its capitalism rhetoric[/p][/quote]I don't think you understand what 'rhetoric' means. Anyway, I digress. The point is, and I fail to see how you can possibly refute it with a straight face, that simply branding ideals left-wing or right-wing, is simply no longer adequate. Saying "capitalism AKA right-wing" or any such variant is irrelevant. Georgem
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

And another thing. Fascist capitalism AKA right-wing hackers, AKA the War Monger Machine Factory, AKA Satan AKA Doctor X, AKA Chuck Finley, is a 600 foot tall Black Angel of the Night that pumps us with diabetes as we sleep.
And another thing. Fascist capitalism AKA right-wing hackers, AKA the War Monger Machine Factory, AKA Satan AKA Doctor X, AKA Chuck Finley, is a 600 foot tall Black Angel of the Night that pumps us with diabetes as we sleep. Georgem
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Southy,

Some time it is difficult to follow your logic.

Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex.

Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not.

Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews?

Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis.

Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government.

Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax.

That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country.

Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government.

Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts.

Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.
throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism.
I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit.
Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Southy, Some time it is difficult to follow your logic. Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex. Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not. Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews? Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis. Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government. Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax. That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country. Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government. Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts. Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.[/p][/quote]throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism. I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit. Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job. southy
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right.
So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right. Georgem
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Tue 18 Sep 12

bigal007 says...

man the line oil drums out they can take are jobs but they cant take are frrreeeeeeeedooooooo
m aw is that a right thing to say

they all lie to get in the spot light we all no who they are may be should them out and let the council be run by the people of southampton !!
man the line oil drums out they can take are jobs but they cant take are frrreeeeeeeedooooooo m aw is that a right thing to say they all lie to get in the spot light we all no who they are may be should them out and let the council be run by the people of southampton !! bigal007
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right.
Its clear line between Left and Right just like your hands are, and like your hands its has sub groups (sections) your hands have didgets each didget have 3 sections, the same happens in the 2 main political economic and political policy Capitalism and Socialism it get sub-divided extreme far right is Fascism extreme far left its Anarchism.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right.[/p][/quote]Its clear line between Left and Right just like your hands are, and like your hands its has sub groups (sections) your hands have didgets each didget have 3 sections, the same happens in the 2 main political economic and political policy Capitalism and Socialism it get sub-divided extreme far right is Fascism extreme far left its Anarchism. southy
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

bigal007 wrote:
man the line oil drums out they can take are jobs but they cant take are frrreeeeeeeedooooooo

m aw is that a right thing to say

they all lie to get in the spot light we all no who they are may be should them out and let the council be run by the people of southampton !!
"let the council be run by the people of southampton"
Good idea but don't you think that would be to socialist for people to handle, I give it a try if you think it would work
[quote][p][bold]bigal007[/bold] wrote: man the line oil drums out they can take are jobs but they cant take are frrreeeeeeeedooooooo m aw is that a right thing to say they all lie to get in the spot light we all no who they are may be should them out and let the council be run by the people of southampton !![/p][/quote]"let the council be run by the people of southampton" Good idea but don't you think that would be to socialist for people to handle, I give it a try if you think it would work southy
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Independent Thought says...

bigal007 wrote:
man the line oil drums out they can take are jobs but they cant take are frrreeeeeeeedooooooo

m aw is that a right thing to say

they all lie to get in the spot light we all no who they are may be should them out and let the council be run by the people of southampton !!
Councillors should be Southampton residents as they represent local people and set Council policies.

The Council staff is another thing. Think you would find that loads of the highly paid managers dont even live in the city but live outside it. Maybe they should be city residents as well?
[quote][p][bold]bigal007[/bold] wrote: man the line oil drums out they can take are jobs but they cant take are frrreeeeeeeedooooooo m aw is that a right thing to say they all lie to get in the spot light we all no who they are may be should them out and let the council be run by the people of southampton !![/p][/quote]Councillors should be Southampton residents as they represent local people and set Council policies. The Council staff is another thing. Think you would find that loads of the highly paid managers dont even live in the city but live outside it. Maybe they should be city residents as well? Independent Thought
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right.
Its clear line between Left and Right just like your hands are, and like your hands its has sub groups (sections) your hands have didgets each didget have 3 sections, the same happens in the 2 main political economic and political policy Capitalism and Socialism it get sub-divided extreme far right is Fascism extreme far left its Anarchism.
Yawn. I shan't even bother reading these posts any more, southy. I've just explained to you, in this very thread, why that view is inadequate.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right.[/p][/quote]Its clear line between Left and Right just like your hands are, and like your hands its has sub groups (sections) your hands have didgets each didget have 3 sections, the same happens in the 2 main political economic and political policy Capitalism and Socialism it get sub-divided extreme far right is Fascism extreme far left its Anarchism.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I shan't even bother reading these posts any more, southy. I've just explained to you, in this very thread, why that view is inadequate. Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Independent Thought wrote:
bigal007 wrote:
man the line oil drums out they can take are jobs but they cant take are frrreeeeeeeedooooooo


m aw is that a right thing to say

they all lie to get in the spot light we all no who they are may be should them out and let the council be run by the people of southampton !!
Councillors should be Southampton residents as they represent local people and set Council policies.

The Council staff is another thing. Think you would find that loads of the highly paid managers dont even live in the city but live outside it. Maybe they should be city residents as well?
Rules to be a Councillor can mean you do not live in southampton, you can be a Councillor for southampton if you work in the city but live out side the city.
[quote][p][bold]Independent Thought[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigal007[/bold] wrote: man the line oil drums out they can take are jobs but they cant take are frrreeeeeeeedooooooo m aw is that a right thing to say they all lie to get in the spot light we all no who they are may be should them out and let the council be run by the people of southampton !![/p][/quote]Councillors should be Southampton residents as they represent local people and set Council policies. The Council staff is another thing. Think you would find that loads of the highly paid managers dont even live in the city but live outside it. Maybe they should be city residents as well?[/p][/quote]Rules to be a Councillor can mean you do not live in southampton, you can be a Councillor for southampton if you work in the city but live out side the city. southy
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Southy,

Some time it is difficult to follow your logic.

Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex.

Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not.

Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews?

Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis.

Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government.

Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax.

That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country.

Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government.

Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts.

Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.
throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism.
I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit.
Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job.
Yes I did and still stand by what I wrote about local NuLabourites planning and telling whoppers over Keith Morrell's resignation and also fully supporting same Keith on his stand taken over Oaklands Pool.

That is why I am saying real life is complex, and why you should avoid narrowing everything thing into us Vs them. Or into capitalism, fascism and socialism.

You have admirable knowledge and always willing to put in lots of work, but I feel you tend to sometimes spoil that by being over defensive. Those who have found this in you are obviously taking advantage of this..
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Southy, Some time it is difficult to follow your logic. Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex. Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not. Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews? Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis. Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government. Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax. That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country. Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government. Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts. Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.[/p][/quote]throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism. I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit. Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job.[/p][/quote]Yes I did and still stand by what I wrote about local NuLabourites planning and telling whoppers over Keith Morrell's resignation and also fully supporting same Keith on his stand taken over Oaklands Pool. That is why I am saying real life is complex, and why you should avoid narrowing everything thing into us Vs them. Or into capitalism, fascism and socialism. You have admirable knowledge and always willing to put in lots of work, but I feel you tend to sometimes spoil that by being over defensive. Those who have found this in you are obviously taking advantage of this.. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right.
Its clear line between Left and Right just like your hands are, and like your hands its has sub groups (sections) your hands have didgets each didget have 3 sections, the same happens in the 2 main political economic and political policy Capitalism and Socialism it get sub-divided extreme far right is Fascism extreme far left its Anarchism.
Yawn. I shan't even bother reading these posts any more, southy. I've just explained to you, in this very thread, why that view is inadequate.
Its not inadequate at all just takes a little bit more off under standing, Like Labour pre 1980 use to use a mild form of State Capitalist System with a bit of Socialism mix in. that is the nature of the Keynsain Policy, Its been 32 years since that policy was used, for the last 32 years its been a Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Nationalism Policy not much difference off the Policy of before 1945.
And I know Andy from Locks Heath will back me up on that and he is a 100% Capitalist he a Thatcherite though and though.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right.[/p][/quote]Its clear line between Left and Right just like your hands are, and like your hands its has sub groups (sections) your hands have didgets each didget have 3 sections, the same happens in the 2 main political economic and political policy Capitalism and Socialism it get sub-divided extreme far right is Fascism extreme far left its Anarchism.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I shan't even bother reading these posts any more, southy. I've just explained to you, in this very thread, why that view is inadequate.[/p][/quote]Its not inadequate at all just takes a little bit more off under standing, Like Labour pre 1980 use to use a mild form of State Capitalist System with a bit of Socialism mix in. that is the nature of the Keynsain Policy, Its been 32 years since that policy was used, for the last 32 years its been a Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Nationalism Policy not much difference off the Policy of before 1945. And I know Andy from Locks Heath will back me up on that and he is a 100% Capitalist he a Thatcherite though and though. southy
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Maine Lobster says...

Georgem wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.
You have figures to back this claim up, I presume.
Do you for your claims?
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.[/p][/quote]You have figures to back this claim up, I presume.[/p][/quote]Do you for your claims? Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Tue 18 Sep 12

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Southy,

Some time it is difficult to follow your logic.

Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex.

Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not.

Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews?

Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis.

Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government.

Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax.

That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country.

Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government.

Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts.

Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.
throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism.
I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit.
Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job.
Yes I did and still stand by what I wrote about local NuLabourites planning and telling whoppers over Keith Morrell's resignation and also fully supporting same Keith on his stand taken over Oaklands Pool.

That is why I am saying real life is complex, and why you should avoid narrowing everything thing into us Vs them. Or into capitalism, fascism and socialism.

You have admirable knowledge and always willing to put in lots of work, but I feel you tend to sometimes spoil that by being over defensive. Those who have found this in you are obviously taking advantage of this..
yes it is or maybe complex but throwing a few bones in the right direction do not mean that they will do what is right for the majority they just throw those bones to keep majority quiet.
I try to go on what there over all actions are and what they do, this last local elections proves that point to well Smith and Williams trying to be different but there actions are the same, there is no real difference just the way they are going to apply them that is different but the results are the same
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Southy, Some time it is difficult to follow your logic. Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex. Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not. Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews? Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis. Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government. Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax. That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country. Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government. Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts. Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.[/p][/quote]throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism. I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit. Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job.[/p][/quote]Yes I did and still stand by what I wrote about local NuLabourites planning and telling whoppers over Keith Morrell's resignation and also fully supporting same Keith on his stand taken over Oaklands Pool. That is why I am saying real life is complex, and why you should avoid narrowing everything thing into us Vs them. Or into capitalism, fascism and socialism. You have admirable knowledge and always willing to put in lots of work, but I feel you tend to sometimes spoil that by being over defensive. Those who have found this in you are obviously taking advantage of this..[/p][/quote]yes it is or maybe complex but throwing a few bones in the right direction do not mean that they will do what is right for the majority they just throw those bones to keep majority quiet. I try to go on what there over all actions are and what they do, this last local elections proves that point to well Smith and Williams trying to be different but there actions are the same, there is no real difference just the way they are going to apply them that is different but the results are the same southy
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Tue 18 Sep 12

bigfella777 says...

You lot dont half talk a load of old pants sometimes,its all me,me,me look at me.Silly old pensioners.
You lot dont half talk a load of old pants sometimes,its all me,me,me look at me.Silly old pensioners. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Over the Edge says...

Surely 200 temp staff going and saving permanent is better, permanent staff get better pay and conditions, (although temp staff after 6 months) isn't better making room. creating space for permanent staff.

Having in the past worked with some of the temp staff at SCC, I can only say I'm not shocked at this decision, the standard of their work was quite poor and they needed hand holding from permanent staff.

I don't see what the issue or all the fuss is about, cuts needs to be made, if this prevents permanent staff losing their jobs so be it.
Surely 200 temp staff going and saving permanent is better, permanent staff get better pay and conditions, (although temp staff after 6 months) isn't better making room. creating space for permanent staff. Having in the past worked with some of the temp staff at SCC, I can only say I'm not shocked at this decision, the standard of their work was quite poor and they needed hand holding from permanent staff. I don't see what the issue or all the fuss is about, cuts needs to be made, if this prevents permanent staff losing their jobs so be it. Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Over the Edge says...

Surely 200 temp staff going and saving permanent staff is better, permanent staff get better pay and conditions, (although temp staff after 6 months with the same employer are entitled to the same conditions) isn't better making room and creating space/positions for permanent staff.

Having in the past worked with some of the temp staff at SCC, I can only say I'm not shocked at this decision, the standard of their work was quite poor and they needed hand holding from permanent staff.

I don't see what the issue or all the fuss is about, cuts needs to be made, if this prevents permanent staff losing their jobs so be it.
Surely 200 temp staff going and saving permanent staff is better, permanent staff get better pay and conditions, (although temp staff after 6 months with the same employer are entitled to the same conditions) isn't better making room and creating space/positions for permanent staff. Having in the past worked with some of the temp staff at SCC, I can only say I'm not shocked at this decision, the standard of their work was quite poor and they needed hand holding from permanent staff. I don't see what the issue or all the fuss is about, cuts needs to be made, if this prevents permanent staff losing their jobs so be it. Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Southy,

Some time it is difficult to follow your logic.

Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex.

Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not.

Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews?

Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis.

Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government.

Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax.

That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country.

Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government.

Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts.

Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.
throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism.
I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit.
Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job.
Yes I did and still stand by what I wrote about local NuLabourites planning and telling whoppers over Keith Morrell's resignation and also fully supporting same Keith on his stand taken over Oaklands Pool.

That is why I am saying real life is complex, and why you should avoid narrowing everything thing into us Vs them. Or into capitalism, fascism and socialism.

You have admirable knowledge and always willing to put in lots of work, but I feel you tend to sometimes spoil that by being over defensive. Those who have found this in you are obviously taking advantage of this..
yes it is or maybe complex but throwing a few bones in the right direction do not mean that they will do what is right for the majority they just throw those bones to keep majority quiet.
I try to go on what there over all actions are and what they do, this last local elections proves that point to well Smith and Williams trying to be different but there actions are the same, there is no real difference just the way they are going to apply them that is different but the results are the same
Yes you have summed up correctly. So please try working with every situation on its own merits or demerits while respecting the fact that others on this site may have their own views or even agenda. Rather than picking upon them all the time try saving your energy for working on real people in your ward.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Southy, Some time it is difficult to follow your logic. Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex. Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not. Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews? Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis. Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government. Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax. That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country. Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government. Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts. Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.[/p][/quote]throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism. I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit. Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job.[/p][/quote]Yes I did and still stand by what I wrote about local NuLabourites planning and telling whoppers over Keith Morrell's resignation and also fully supporting same Keith on his stand taken over Oaklands Pool. That is why I am saying real life is complex, and why you should avoid narrowing everything thing into us Vs them. Or into capitalism, fascism and socialism. You have admirable knowledge and always willing to put in lots of work, but I feel you tend to sometimes spoil that by being over defensive. Those who have found this in you are obviously taking advantage of this..[/p][/quote]yes it is or maybe complex but throwing a few bones in the right direction do not mean that they will do what is right for the majority they just throw those bones to keep majority quiet. I try to go on what there over all actions are and what they do, this last local elections proves that point to well Smith and Williams trying to be different but there actions are the same, there is no real difference just the way they are going to apply them that is different but the results are the same[/p][/quote]Yes you have summed up correctly. So please try working with every situation on its own merits or demerits while respecting the fact that others on this site may have their own views or even agenda. Rather than picking upon them all the time try saving your energy for working on real people in your ward. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Tue 18 Sep 12

George4th says...

Linesman wrote:
The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.
The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts.

It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council!
>
I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.[/p][/quote]The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts. It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council! > I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!! George4th
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Dresnez says...

Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
Please explain how it costs less if they are paid more, and they agency is not providing temps for nothing, they have overheads to cover and will want to make a good profit.

So please enlighten me as to how they cost the taxpayer less.

Agency workers get little in the way of pension benefits so will require welfare subsidies when they retire so again another cost to the taxpayer.

Using temps instead of permanent staff is a good way of the private sector milking the taxpayer if you ask me, but I may be wrong.

I await your reply/
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]Please explain how it costs less if they are paid more, and they agency is not providing temps for nothing, they have overheads to cover and will want to make a good profit. So please enlighten me as to how they cost the taxpayer less. Agency workers get little in the way of pension benefits so will require welfare subsidies when they retire so again another cost to the taxpayer. Using temps instead of permanent staff is a good way of the private sector milking the taxpayer if you ask me, but I may be wrong. I await your reply/ Dresnez
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Dresnez says...

George4th wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.
The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts.

It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council!
>
I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!!
In the first paragraph you made a very good point.

Pity you spoilt it by insulting all the people from Southamton.

Your rant rather detracts from your valid argument.

Oh and I am not from Southampton.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.[/p][/quote]The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts. It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council! > I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!![/p][/quote]In the first paragraph you made a very good point. Pity you spoilt it by insulting all the people from Southamton. Your rant rather detracts from your valid argument. Oh and I am not from Southampton. Dresnez
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Maine Lobster says...

George4th wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.
The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts.

It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council!
>
I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!!
Let's see if visitor numbers meet the hopes of the last administration. Most informed opinion seems to think the initial novelty value will soon wear off and it will struggle to justify all the money.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.[/p][/quote]The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts. It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council! > I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!![/p][/quote]Let's see if visitor numbers meet the hopes of the last administration. Most informed opinion seems to think the initial novelty value will soon wear off and it will struggle to justify all the money. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Dresnez says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Once in power Adolf Hitler turned Germany into a fascist state. Fascist was originally used to describe the government of Benito Mussolini in Italy. Mussolini's fascist one-party state emphasized patriotism, national unity, hatred of communism, admiration of military values and unquestioning obedience. Hitler was deeply influenced by Mussolini's Italy and his Germany shared many of the same characteristics.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Once in power Adolf Hitler turned Germany into a fascist state. Fascist was originally used to describe the government of Benito Mussolini in Italy. Mussolini's fascist one-party state emphasized patriotism, national unity, hatred of communism, admiration of military values and unquestioning obedience. Hitler was deeply influenced by Mussolini's Italy and his Germany shared many of the same characteristics. Dresnez
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Dresnez says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
Ah some truth at last. They are all useless. I despise all politicians. So few are worthy of any respect. Lab,Lib, Con, UKIP, BNP have no answers to the global problems and all spout such similar policies or non policies there is little to choose between them. This Tory government has been the worst government since WWII and that is saying something because there has been some sh*te in the past of both red and blue.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]Ah some truth at last. They are all useless. I despise all politicians. So few are worthy of any respect. Lab,Lib, Con, UKIP, BNP have no answers to the global problems and all spout such similar policies or non policies there is little to choose between them. This Tory government has been the worst government since WWII and that is saying something because there has been some sh*te in the past of both red and blue. Dresnez
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Over the Edge wrote:
Surely 200 temp staff going and saving permanent staff is better, permanent staff get better pay and conditions, (although temp staff after 6 months with the same employer are entitled to the same conditions) isn't better making room and creating space/positions for permanent staff.

Having in the past worked with some of the temp staff at SCC, I can only say I'm not shocked at this decision, the standard of their work was quite poor and they needed hand holding from permanent staff.

I don't see what the issue or all the fuss is about, cuts needs to be made, if this prevents permanent staff losing their jobs so be it.
Have you tread the conditions of the jobs to be found for permanent workers when they're jobs go?
4 months in what could be a wage way below what they're on.
then they have to accept it or take a low payment & leave.
If they don't want to try it they are refusing to work so could leave with no payment & no chance of getting social security for a while.
my company bought in team work & we either accepted the new positions ( trebling work load) or we were deemed to be making ourselves unemployable.
They don't say how it will effect they're pensions or guarantee the jobs for the long term.
The council workers could take the low paid jobs only to find in a year those jobs are no longer needed.
Lower redundancy pay & lower pensions?
I know because some of our workers were offered day work which would have taken us 4 years to get the same package as we were already on.
in the past a group went onto days then two years after they were made redundant ( we had an agreement of staying on our pay & pension,redundancy packages for 2 years).
This is just the start & people like you should open your eyes & you'd see what's coming
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: Surely 200 temp staff going and saving permanent staff is better, permanent staff get better pay and conditions, (although temp staff after 6 months with the same employer are entitled to the same conditions) isn't better making room and creating space/positions for permanent staff. Having in the past worked with some of the temp staff at SCC, I can only say I'm not shocked at this decision, the standard of their work was quite poor and they needed hand holding from permanent staff. I don't see what the issue or all the fuss is about, cuts needs to be made, if this prevents permanent staff losing their jobs so be it.[/p][/quote]Have you tread the conditions of the jobs to be found for permanent workers when they're jobs go? 4 months in what could be a wage way below what they're on. then they have to accept it or take a low payment & leave. If they don't want to try it they are refusing to work so could leave with no payment & no chance of getting social security for a while. my company bought in team work & we either accepted the new positions ( trebling work load) or we were deemed to be making ourselves unemployable. They don't say how it will effect they're pensions or guarantee the jobs for the long term. The council workers could take the low paid jobs only to find in a year those jobs are no longer needed. Lower redundancy pay & lower pensions? I know because some of our workers were offered day work which would have taken us 4 years to get the same package as we were already on. in the past a group went onto days then two years after they were made redundant ( we had an agreement of staying on our pay & pension,redundancy packages for 2 years). This is just the start & people like you should open your eyes & you'd see what's coming loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Dresnez says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power.
Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.
Predictable nonsense.
Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand
There used to be but Nu Labour from Blair's time has blurred the boundaries considerably. Now they are all Tories of one sort or another. Unions have stayed nearer to the original Labour views.

Don't matter who you vote for now you get the same policies only with Labour perhaps a little less right wing and that is arguable.

Milliband has said he will not be repealing any Coalition legislation or measures.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power. Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.[/p][/quote]Predictable nonsense.[/p][/quote]Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand[/p][/quote]There used to be but Nu Labour from Blair's time has blurred the boundaries considerably. Now they are all Tories of one sort or another. Unions have stayed nearer to the original Labour views. Don't matter who you vote for now you get the same policies only with Labour perhaps a little less right wing and that is arguable. Milliband has said he will not be repealing any Coalition legislation or measures. Dresnez
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Tue 18 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Dresnez wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power.
Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.
Predictable nonsense.
Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand
There used to be but Nu Labour from Blair's time has blurred the boundaries considerably. Now they are all Tories of one sort or another. Unions have stayed nearer to the original Labour views.

Don't matter who you vote for now you get the same policies only with Labour perhaps a little less right wing and that is arguable.

Milliband has said he will not be repealing any Coalition legislation or measures.
Why are you people trying to blur the debate?
this is about Labour council & Unions together getting rid of 200 jobs with many more to follow.
how many jobs could have been saved with out the two new cabinet posts?
What about the £50million extra for Townhill development?
we have a council that got to power through a political strike.
they now have to honour their deal with the Unions & said they had the money?
This kinda proves that to be a lie doesn't it?
[quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]No he wrong, left and right matters as much today as it did 100 years ago, Right wing = Capitalism = the support of big business, corporations to squeeze to max out of people and not sharing. Puts money before people and hoards and worship of money and power. Left Wing = Socialism = the sharing of the wealth, and giving all a bite of the apple. people before money, money being use as its ment to as a tool.[/p][/quote]Predictable nonsense.[/p][/quote]Not nonsence that is what it is, there is a line that defines Capitalism aka Right Wing and Socialism aka Left wing, its as clear difference between you left and right hand[/p][/quote]There used to be but Nu Labour from Blair's time has blurred the boundaries considerably. Now they are all Tories of one sort or another. Unions have stayed nearer to the original Labour views. Don't matter who you vote for now you get the same policies only with Labour perhaps a little less right wing and that is arguable. Milliband has said he will not be repealing any Coalition legislation or measures.[/p][/quote]Why are you people trying to blur the debate? this is about Labour council & Unions together getting rid of 200 jobs with many more to follow. how many jobs could have been saved with out the two new cabinet posts? What about the £50million extra for Townhill development? we have a council that got to power through a political strike. they now have to honour their deal with the Unions & said they had the money? This kinda proves that to be a lie doesn't it? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Dresnez says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Southy,

Some time it is difficult to follow your logic.

Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex.

Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not.

Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews?

Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis.

Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government.

Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax.

That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country.

Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government.

Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts.

Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.
throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism.
I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit.
Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job.
Yes I did and still stand by what I wrote about local NuLabourites planning and telling whoppers over Keith Morrell's resignation and also fully supporting same Keith on his stand taken over Oaklands Pool.

That is why I am saying real life is complex, and why you should avoid narrowing everything thing into us Vs them. Or into capitalism, fascism and socialism.

You have admirable knowledge and always willing to put in lots of work, but I feel you tend to sometimes spoil that by being over defensive. Those who have found this in you are obviously taking advantage of this..
yes it is or maybe complex but throwing a few bones in the right direction do not mean that they will do what is right for the majority they just throw those bones to keep majority quiet.
I try to go on what there over all actions are and what they do, this last local elections proves that point to well Smith and Williams trying to be different but there actions are the same, there is no real difference just the way they are going to apply them that is different but the results are the same
Yes you have summed up correctly. So please try working with every situation on its own merits or demerits while respecting the fact that others on this site may have their own views or even agenda. Rather than picking upon them all the time try saving your energy for working on real people in your ward.
Paramjit Bahia very good post.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Southy, Some time it is difficult to follow your logic. Just because some people may not belong to certain group does not make them capitalist ultra right or fascist. Winding people on this site is one thing but the real life is too complex. Even cowboy President Bush practised so called socialist system while trying to save capitalism when he poured billions to save some American Banks, which is contradiction of principles of ‘free market’ the mantra of capitalism. Under Thatcher Rolls Royce was nationalised. Originally even water was not nationalised by any Labour or socialist government. Should we as socialists have opposed that??????? I hope not. Haven’t you ever thought of super rich believers in capitalism who were killed by fascist Hitler because they were Jews? Please do not try to tell me that Churchill was not a capitalist; but he led historic fight against most obnoxious form of fascism of that monster Hitler’s Nazis. Basic issue on this thread is financial problem of local government. Your answer to those should be to question the policies of last few decades, how local authorities have been financially penalised by central government. Over the years governments of all three main parties have kept on pushing more and more responsibilities upon local authorities but have not only kept on decreasing national share of contribution they have also been capping the amount councils can raise through Council Tax. That basic problem needs challenging in an organised manner. Most if not all the Councils should get together to demand resources from Central Govt. At one time Labour preached that, but when Liverpool and Lewisham etc tried to act the Party led by Kinnock turned upon them, because powerful press was becoming hysterical about ‘Reds Under Beds’ and Trotskyite Militant Tendency threat to the country. Basically TUSC is saying no different than what Labour originally preached, that was before likes of Blunket decided to ‘skate on thin ice’ and betrayed all those who wanted to secure proper funding from Central government. Once again the real issue is starting to be sidelined because of sectarian nature of many who do not want to touch TUSC because there are too many members of your Socialist Party in it. In fairness I must also say that some if not all members of SP are not exactly helpful because like you they too waste more time on attacking those with whom they may have minor differences (for example you about Greens) than concentrating upon the bigger beasts. Hardly surprising we are not making much progress, while people are fed up with system that is cutting services and many workers are losing jobs.[/p][/quote]throwing a few bones of socialism for the people is only to keep them quiet, like in bush case if he did not do that at the time would of been roits all over the USA and the whole banking system would of totally collapse where people would off been with drawing all there money from the banks all capitalism will do this just to save there necks, and don't forget the Bush Family are from bankers, it was J, Bush who help Hitler to be finance, Hitler was a capitalist as was churchill just 2 different types of capitalism. I have no problem with Socialist Greens they are trying to do the right thing and that is a green policy where all will benefit, under the greens it the Capialist that will benefit. Was it not you who was having a dig at Keith when Williams got Keith to lie for him about the reason why he resigned from the cabinet job.[/p][/quote]Yes I did and still stand by what I wrote about local NuLabourites planning and telling whoppers over Keith Morrell's resignation and also fully supporting same Keith on his stand taken over Oaklands Pool. That is why I am saying real life is complex, and why you should avoid narrowing everything thing into us Vs them. Or into capitalism, fascism and socialism. You have admirable knowledge and always willing to put in lots of work, but I feel you tend to sometimes spoil that by being over defensive. Those who have found this in you are obviously taking advantage of this..[/p][/quote]yes it is or maybe complex but throwing a few bones in the right direction do not mean that they will do what is right for the majority they just throw those bones to keep majority quiet. I try to go on what there over all actions are and what they do, this last local elections proves that point to well Smith and Williams trying to be different but there actions are the same, there is no real difference just the way they are going to apply them that is different but the results are the same[/p][/quote]Yes you have summed up correctly. So please try working with every situation on its own merits or demerits while respecting the fact that others on this site may have their own views or even agenda. Rather than picking upon them all the time try saving your energy for working on real people in your ward.[/p][/quote]Paramjit Bahia very good post. Dresnez
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Tue 18 Sep 12

George4th says...

Dresnez wrote:
George4th wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.
The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts.

It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council!
>
I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!!
In the first paragraph you made a very good point.

Pity you spoilt it by insulting all the people from Southamton.

Your rant rather detracts from your valid argument.

Oh and I am not from Southampton.
Rant? Slightly overzealous maybe!
>
Funnily enough I was talking to a guy today from the North who came down here for work - without any prompting from me he said that people down here "whinge a lot don't they?"! I had to agree!
[quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.[/p][/quote]The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts. It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council! > I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!![/p][/quote]In the first paragraph you made a very good point. Pity you spoilt it by insulting all the people from Southamton. Your rant rather detracts from your valid argument. Oh and I am not from Southampton.[/p][/quote]Rant? Slightly overzealous maybe! > Funnily enough I was talking to a guy today from the North who came down here for work - without any prompting from me he said that people down here "whinge a lot don't they?"! I had to agree! George4th
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Dresnez wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
Please explain how it costs less if they are paid more, and they agency is not providing temps for nothing, they have overheads to cover and will want to make a good profit.

So please enlighten me as to how they cost the taxpayer less.

Agency workers get little in the way of pension benefits so will require welfare subsidies when they retire so again another cost to the taxpayer.

Using temps instead of permanent staff is a good way of the private sector milking the taxpayer if you ask me, but I may be wrong.

I await your reply/
It's perfectly simple. Are you employed? Suppose you have a salary of £30k. Do you believe you cost your employer EXACTLY £30k a year? No. You cost them roughly double that. Not so for an agency worker.

There. A reply. If you need any of the trickier concepts explained, let me know.
[quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]Please explain how it costs less if they are paid more, and they agency is not providing temps for nothing, they have overheads to cover and will want to make a good profit. So please enlighten me as to how they cost the taxpayer less. Agency workers get little in the way of pension benefits so will require welfare subsidies when they retire so again another cost to the taxpayer. Using temps instead of permanent staff is a good way of the private sector milking the taxpayer if you ask me, but I may be wrong. I await your reply/[/p][/quote]It's perfectly simple. Are you employed? Suppose you have a salary of £30k. Do you believe you cost your employer EXACTLY £30k a year? No. You cost them roughly double that. Not so for an agency worker. There. A reply. If you need any of the trickier concepts explained, let me know. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:25pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right.
Its clear line between Left and Right just like your hands are, and like your hands its has sub groups (sections) your hands have didgets each didget have 3 sections, the same happens in the 2 main political economic and political policy Capitalism and Socialism it get sub-divided extreme far right is Fascism extreme far left its Anarchism.
Yawn. I shan't even bother reading these posts any more, southy. I've just explained to you, in this very thread, why that view is inadequate.
Its not inadequate at all just takes a little bit more off under standing, Like Labour pre 1980 use to use a mild form of State Capitalist System with a bit of Socialism mix in. that is the nature of the Keynsain Policy, Its been 32 years since that policy was used, for the last 32 years its been a Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Nationalism Policy not much difference off the Policy of before 1945.
And I know Andy from Locks Heath will back me up on that and he is a 100% Capitalist he a Thatcherite though and though.
Whatever. You're not qualified to discuss the matter.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: So now, southy, you're talking about "different types of capitalism". I thought this was all perfectly simple, as clear as left from right.[/p][/quote]Its clear line between Left and Right just like your hands are, and like your hands its has sub groups (sections) your hands have didgets each didget have 3 sections, the same happens in the 2 main political economic and political policy Capitalism and Socialism it get sub-divided extreme far right is Fascism extreme far left its Anarchism.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I shan't even bother reading these posts any more, southy. I've just explained to you, in this very thread, why that view is inadequate.[/p][/quote]Its not inadequate at all just takes a little bit more off under standing, Like Labour pre 1980 use to use a mild form of State Capitalist System with a bit of Socialism mix in. that is the nature of the Keynsain Policy, Its been 32 years since that policy was used, for the last 32 years its been a Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Nationalism Policy not much difference off the Policy of before 1945. And I know Andy from Locks Heath will back me up on that and he is a 100% Capitalist he a Thatcherite though and though.[/p][/quote]Whatever. You're not qualified to discuss the matter. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:26pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.
You have figures to back this claim up, I presume.
Do you for your claims?
Yes.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.[/p][/quote]You have figures to back this claim up, I presume.[/p][/quote]Do you for your claims?[/p][/quote]Yes. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:28pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Dresnez wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care
for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!!
Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs.
Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.
Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them.

Explain 'pure right wing' please.
Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs.
Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax.
You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference
You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it.

'Pure right wing' infers Fascism.

You've still not grasped the differences have you?

To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish.

But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'.

I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please.

Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.
No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.
Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist.

The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.
Ah some truth at last. They are all useless. I despise all politicians. So few are worthy of any respect. Lab,Lib, Con, UKIP, BNP have no answers to the global problems and all spout such similar policies or non policies there is little to choose between them. This Tory government has been the worst government since WWII and that is saying something because there has been some sh*te in the past of both red and blue.
I agree. The very idea of a politician is fundamentally broken. I'm not sure what the alternative is yet, though.
[quote][p][bold]Dresnez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: doesnt matter if your permanent or agency in Southampton City Council because The Labour council dont care for its loyal staff or voters-FACT all ive witnessed is all doom and gloom!![/p][/quote]Yes, and the TUSC Political Group said this will happen under a Tory, Labour, Greens, UKIP, First and any other pure right wing party, there will be cuts to Services and Jobs. Its a case that the TUSC told you so before the elections.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but that's still not enough reason to vote for them. Explain 'pure right wing' please.[/p][/quote]Its good enough if you want to keep services and jobs. Just because Council Tax do not go up, it do not mean there is no increase, an increase in council tax can happen when your paying the same tax but getting less services for your tax. You know what is right wing you do not need to told the difference[/p][/quote]You've dodged the question, maybe you shouldn't have said it. 'Pure right wing' infers Fascism. You've still not grasped the differences have you? To label everyone who is not on your side of the political spectrum 'pure right wing' is utterly childish. But as long as we are going to use political baby talk then you won't mind if I infer you to be 'pure left wing'. I'm assuming you have all the facts and figures about how you're party would pay for this all. Link to the info please. Imagine me as someone who might be undecided and wants to see them. If you don't have it to hand, I'm going somewhere else.[/p][/quote]No Fascism it Extreme Far Right Wing, Right wing is Capitalism in it many forms, you really do need to learn.[/p][/quote]Southy, drop the "you need to learn" nonsense. Shoongs point - and he's spot-on - is that you assume everyone who doesn't support your political ideals is, by definition, a right-wing fascist capitalist. The entire notion of left/right wing politics is inadequate today. I've explained this to you, but you try and draw attention away from it with irrelevant history lessons about the labour party, for some reason.[/p][/quote]Ah some truth at last. They are all useless. I despise all politicians. So few are worthy of any respect. Lab,Lib, Con, UKIP, BNP have no answers to the global problems and all spout such similar policies or non policies there is little to choose between them. This Tory government has been the worst government since WWII and that is saying something because there has been some sh*te in the past of both red and blue.[/p][/quote]I agree. The very idea of a politician is fundamentally broken. I'm not sure what the alternative is yet, though. Georgem
  • Score: 0

7:45am Wed 19 Sep 12

FoysCornerBoy says...

George4th wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.
The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts.

It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council!
>
I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!!
Surely you aren't accusing Southampton people of being 'in-bred'.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The price you have to pay for Royston's Folly - the Titanic White Elephant.[/p][/quote]The SeaCity Museum is EXCELLENT! Everyone I know who has been to see it has been 100% complimentary! It is TERRIFIC! It's a great building with every modern gizmo you can think of. It gives a wonderful insight into the history of Southampton through photos, videos and artifacts. It's a shame that many citizens of the City of Southampton were born with a gene that causes whinging, moaning, lethargy, apathy and inertia - much like the Labour Council! > I would bet that most Sotonians haven't even been to the SeaCity Museum or many other of Southampton's attractions. Many people have a problem getting away from the TV or the Computer or posting on this website!![/p][/quote]Surely you aren't accusing Southampton people of being 'in-bred'. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

8:08am Wed 19 Sep 12

Vonnie says...

Graeme Harrison wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments.
What is it that you don't understand? Agency workers are not the employees of SCC. They have no permanent contract with SCC, or anyone else, so they are not entitled to redundancy pay from anyone.
Agencies don't employ them. They just find them jobs on a temporary basis and charge employers the earth for doing so. It is still cheaper for employers, however, because they don't carry the same "running costs" that full time employees do. ie. if someone is sick they just ask the agency for another person and have no further costs.
[quote][p][bold]Graeme Harrison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments.[/p][/quote]What is it that you don't understand? Agency workers are not the employees of SCC. They have no permanent contract with SCC, or anyone else, so they are not entitled to redundancy pay from anyone. Agencies don't employ them. They just find them jobs on a temporary basis and charge employers the earth for doing so. It is still cheaper for employers, however, because they don't carry the same "running costs" that full time employees do. ie. if someone is sick they just ask the agency for another person and have no further costs. Vonnie
  • Score: 0

8:16am Wed 19 Sep 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Such a shame for the people who will lose their jobs, and for their families.

Surely the socialists should be rallying round and offering to take a small paycut in order to be able to keep these people in their jobs?

Of course not, the unions were fighting against pay cuts, Labour were against pay cuts.... certain folks want to hang on to what they've got, or take a big redundancy package, never mind that the country is broke, and can afford neither of these options.

What is the inevitable result?

JOB LOSSES

Could have predicted that one....

...but of course, it was predicted.

A significant proportion of the blame can be placed squarely at the door of those who voted labour locally ( and of course for those that voted for Labour nationally since 1997, allowing Labour to spend it all in the good times once again, leaving nothing for a rainy day)

Surely it is better to keep people in work, and have them receive a little less, than have these people out of work, and more families dependent upon benefits
Such a shame for the people who will lose their jobs, and for their families. Surely the socialists should be rallying round and offering to take a small paycut in order to be able to keep these people in their jobs? Of course not, the unions were fighting against pay cuts, Labour were against pay cuts.... certain folks want to hang on to what they've got, or take a big redundancy package, never mind that the country is broke, and can afford neither of these options. What is the inevitable result? JOB LOSSES Could have predicted that one.... ...but of course, it was predicted. A significant proportion of the blame can be placed squarely at the door of those who voted labour locally ( and of course for those that voted for Labour nationally since 1997, allowing Labour to spend it all in the good times once again, leaving nothing for a rainy day) Surely it is better to keep people in work, and have them receive a little less, than have these people out of work, and more families dependent upon benefits Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

9:00am Wed 19 Sep 12

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
You bl++dy hypocrites!
I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans.
we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses.
then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary?
The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them?
If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ?
Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now?
On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council?
We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO
Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts.

How many paying customers visited yesterday?

My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.
Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses.
the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate.
the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument
No need to be abusive. I know that it is not pleasant when you are reminded of mistakes made by the administration that you supported but, whether you like it or not, the Sea City Museum was NOT (R) WHOLLY FUNDED BY A LOTTERY GRANT & OTHERS.

As with all other lottery grants, the recipients have to put up a percentage of the cost of what has to be funded, and no Royston's Folly was no exception.

Royston did the deal, leaving those that followed him to pay the price, and what we are seing now is part of the price that has to be paid.

You constantly bellyache about Labour leaving a note to say that there was no money in the safe.

Royston did not even leave a note.
Once again monies received from selling Millbrook Ind.Est. went to paying for the build & I remember you & others kicking up about that.
Now tell me does a 2% pay cut on £22,000 sound worse than no job at all?
And you think that the City's contribution was a mere £22,000?

I doubt very much whether that would even have covered the architect's fees.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: You bl++dy hypocrites! I & many like us come on here telling you of Labours plans. we tell you watch out for job losses yet you argue what job losses. then when you hear temporary you blame Sea city Museum ( totally different budget) you say so it's temporary? The workers ( 200) will be redeployed for 4 months but what happens if they can't or don't want to do the job offered to them ? If there's a job to offer them? If it's lower pay & they take it will they be guaranteed that their pension & redundancy packages will remain at the higher wage ? Will they have to take a cut on their pension as well as their earnings & then find out the job they've taken is up for review & they could face redundancy on less money than if they were made redundant now? On top of that the refuse workers will be expected to drop court cases would you knowing what's to come ( tip of iceberg) vote to accept any deal with this council? We told you at least with the Tories you had jobs & were better off well now I can say TOLD YOU SO[/p][/quote]Similarly, I and many others, were saying that the money spent on Royston's White Elephant would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely involve cuts. How many paying customers visited yesterday? My betting is that they did not cover the running costs.[/p][/quote]Can't you get it through you're thick head the Sea City Museum had sweet B+ggar all to do with pay cuts or job losses. the Sea city Museum was built on funding from the Lottery & other grant organisations & from selling Millbrook industrial estate. the wage cuts were for a year on year ( continuos) cut in expenditure so stop the hell bringing that red herring into the argument[/p][/quote]No need to be abusive. I know that it is not pleasant when you are reminded of mistakes made by the administration that you supported but, whether you like it or not, the Sea City Museum was NOT (R) WHOLLY FUNDED BY A LOTTERY GRANT & OTHERS. As with all other lottery grants, the recipients have to put up a percentage of the cost of what has to be funded, and no Royston's Folly was no exception. Royston did the deal, leaving those that followed him to pay the price, and what we are seing now is part of the price that has to be paid. You constantly bellyache about Labour leaving a note to say that there was no money in the safe. Royston did not even leave a note.[/p][/quote]Once again monies received from selling Millbrook Ind.Est. went to paying for the build & I remember you & others kicking up about that. Now tell me does a 2% pay cut on £22,000 sound worse than no job at all?[/p][/quote]And you think that the City's contribution was a mere £22,000? I doubt very much whether that would even have covered the architect's fees. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:24am Wed 19 Sep 12

lisa whitemore says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Collectively we the citizens must accept our part in this unholy mess.

After all it is us who either voted for these councillors or made their election possible by staying away on election day.

So many self serving ego driven men and women got elected. Most of them have conveniently forgotten that they should be serving the people but have become puppets of highly paid pen pushers or rubber stamps in Fat Cats hands.

We may have changed parties in power but not the evil nasty and vicious agenda of so called officers.
Once again i totally agree.. Fat Cats Overpaid and Couldnt care less about the people they are suppose to represent! Totally Heartless!
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Collectively we the citizens must accept our part in this unholy mess. After all it is us who either voted for these councillors or made their election possible by staying away on election day. So many self serving ego driven men and women got elected. Most of them have conveniently forgotten that they should be serving the people but have become puppets of highly paid pen pushers or rubber stamps in Fat Cats hands. We may have changed parties in power but not the evil nasty and vicious agenda of so called officers.[/p][/quote]Once again i totally agree.. Fat Cats Overpaid and Couldnt care less about the people they are suppose to represent! Totally Heartless! lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

10:30am Wed 19 Sep 12

aldermoorboy says...

Linesman you get 10/10 for loyalty to Labour, but 0/10 for judgement.
It is the Tories in Southampton that care for all the people, Labour/Union leaders care just for themselves.
If Labour get back in power nationally they will turn us into Greece.
God help our children if they do, the debt will break them.
Linesman you get 10/10 for loyalty to Labour, but 0/10 for judgement. It is the Tories in Southampton that care for all the people, Labour/Union leaders care just for themselves. If Labour get back in power nationally they will turn us into Greece. God help our children if they do, the debt will break them. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

11:43am Wed 19 Sep 12

ohec says...

If your in debt you have to find ways of paying off that debt you can increase your income (put up council tax) or you can reduce your outgoings (reduce wage bill) and it doesn't make any difference who is in charge you still have the same debt and the same options of paying off that debt, so maybe people should just accept that instead of trying to score political points.
Nobody likes the idea of being in debt and they like the solutions even less but the hard facts are SCC is in debt and needs to repay that debt so a little more thought into innovative ways of how to repay the debt rather than just making cheap political digs at one another would be more constructive.
If your in debt you have to find ways of paying off that debt you can increase your income (put up council tax) or you can reduce your outgoings (reduce wage bill) and it doesn't make any difference who is in charge you still have the same debt and the same options of paying off that debt, so maybe people should just accept that instead of trying to score political points. Nobody likes the idea of being in debt and they like the solutions even less but the hard facts are SCC is in debt and needs to repay that debt so a little more thought into innovative ways of how to repay the debt rather than just making cheap political digs at one another would be more constructive. ohec
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Wed 19 Sep 12

aldermoorboy says...

OHEC, it was Labour who put us in this position from 1997- 2010 by over spending ( £3 earnings £4 spent). The point I was making is Tories have the sense to live within our means.
Second point, locally Labour promised everything when we have little money, now they cannot deliver, that is misleading the voters.
Tories wanted a small salary drop for the better off, to keep services in Southampton, but Labour /Union militants had a political strike which has ended now with Labour sacking 200+ workers and restoring pay for the better off.
Conclusion vote Tory in 2014 for the party that cares and tells the truth.
OHEC, it was Labour who put us in this position from 1997- 2010 by over spending ( £3 earnings £4 spent). The point I was making is Tories have the sense to live within our means. Second point, locally Labour promised everything when we have little money, now they cannot deliver, that is misleading the voters. Tories wanted a small salary drop for the better off, to keep services in Southampton, but Labour /Union militants had a political strike which has ended now with Labour sacking 200+ workers and restoring pay for the better off. Conclusion vote Tory in 2014 for the party that cares and tells the truth. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Wed 19 Sep 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Wow talk about out of proportion or what ........ mind you it is to be expected from the usual Tory posters.
.
They will do away with Agency workers. These are paid by the agency and in theory employed by the agency and cost a small packet ..... however the agency worker often gets paid on or about the national minimum pay.
.
Doing away with "Freelancers" who command a very high payment, often on day rates, and cost an absolute fortune to carry out the same jobs as the SCC employed.
.
Its a pity but the dear old Echo really spend more time getting quotes from a failed leader rather than establishing the "truth" or perhaps putting more meat on the bone.
Wow talk about out of proportion or what ........ mind you it is to be expected from the usual Tory posters. . They will do away with Agency workers. These are paid by the agency and in theory employed by the agency and cost a small packet ..... however the agency worker often gets paid on or about the national minimum pay. . Doing away with "Freelancers" who command a very high payment, often on day rates, and cost an absolute fortune to carry out the same jobs as the SCC employed. . Its a pity but the dear old Echo really spend more time getting quotes from a failed leader rather than establishing the "truth" or perhaps putting more meat on the bone. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Wed 19 Sep 12

loosehead says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
OHEC, it was Labour who put us in this position from 1997- 2010 by over spending ( £3 earnings £4 spent). The point I was making is Tories have the sense to live within our means.
Second point, locally Labour promised everything when we have little money, now they cannot deliver, that is misleading the voters.
Tories wanted a small salary drop for the better off, to keep services in Southampton, but Labour /Union militants had a political strike which has ended now with Labour sacking 200+ workers and restoring pay for the better off.
Conclusion vote Tory in 2014 for the party that cares and tells the truth.
They said that the money saved from court cases ( if the workers vote to accept the offer) would restore pay to a minority of the workforce.
now 200 jobs to go if you work on an average of £17,500 each that equates to £3.5million not far off what they said they already had is it?
if you took this amount off the £42million they need to save then how many more need to lose their jobs before enough money has been saved?
or how much will council tax have to go up to cover this amount?
Aldermooreboy exactly where's the extra £50million they're spending on Townhill park coming from?
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: OHEC, it was Labour who put us in this position from 1997- 2010 by over spending ( £3 earnings £4 spent). The point I was making is Tories have the sense to live within our means. Second point, locally Labour promised everything when we have little money, now they cannot deliver, that is misleading the voters. Tories wanted a small salary drop for the better off, to keep services in Southampton, but Labour /Union militants had a political strike which has ended now with Labour sacking 200+ workers and restoring pay for the better off. Conclusion vote Tory in 2014 for the party that cares and tells the truth.[/p][/quote]They said that the money saved from court cases ( if the workers vote to accept the offer) would restore pay to a minority of the workforce. now 200 jobs to go if you work on an average of £17,500 each that equates to £3.5million not far off what they said they already had is it? if you took this amount off the £42million they need to save then how many more need to lose their jobs before enough money has been saved? or how much will council tax have to go up to cover this amount? Aldermooreboy exactly where's the extra £50million they're spending on Townhill park coming from? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Wed 19 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Wow talk about out of proportion or what ........ mind you it is to be expected from the usual Tory posters.
.
They will do away with Agency workers. These are paid by the agency and in theory employed by the agency and cost a small packet ..... however the agency worker often gets paid on or about the national minimum pay.
.
Doing away with "Freelancers" who command a very high payment, often on day rates, and cost an absolute fortune to carry out the same jobs as the SCC employed.
.
Its a pity but the dear old Echo really spend more time getting quotes from a failed leader rather than establishing the "truth" or perhaps putting more meat on the bone.
Exactly what will it take for you to see how the electorate of this city were conned into voting for this destructive labour party?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Wow talk about out of proportion or what ........ mind you it is to be expected from the usual Tory posters. . They will do away with Agency workers. These are paid by the agency and in theory employed by the agency and cost a small packet ..... however the agency worker often gets paid on or about the national minimum pay. . Doing away with "Freelancers" who command a very high payment, often on day rates, and cost an absolute fortune to carry out the same jobs as the SCC employed. . Its a pity but the dear old Echo really spend more time getting quotes from a failed leader rather than establishing the "truth" or perhaps putting more meat on the bone.[/p][/quote]Exactly what will it take for you to see how the electorate of this city were conned into voting for this destructive labour party? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Wed 19 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Wow talk about out of proportion or what ........ mind you it is to be expected from the usual Tory posters.
.
They will do away with Agency workers. These are paid by the agency and in theory employed by the agency and cost a small packet ..... however the agency worker often gets paid on or about the national minimum pay.
.
Doing away with "Freelancers" who command a very high payment, often on day rates, and cost an absolute fortune to carry out the same jobs as the SCC employed.
.
Its a pity but the dear old Echo really spend more time getting quotes from a failed leader rather than establishing the "truth" or perhaps putting more meat on the bone.
Freelancers are also cheaper than permanent employees. They also don't do the same jobs as the permanent employees. As well as the day job, they're also in effect relieving their client of some accounting duties. As a freelancer, I do my own PAYE and NI calculations and paperwork, my clients don't have anything to do with it. They just settle invoices as they do with any other supplier.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Wow talk about out of proportion or what ........ mind you it is to be expected from the usual Tory posters. . They will do away with Agency workers. These are paid by the agency and in theory employed by the agency and cost a small packet ..... however the agency worker often gets paid on or about the national minimum pay. . Doing away with "Freelancers" who command a very high payment, often on day rates, and cost an absolute fortune to carry out the same jobs as the SCC employed. . Its a pity but the dear old Echo really spend more time getting quotes from a failed leader rather than establishing the "truth" or perhaps putting more meat on the bone.[/p][/quote]Freelancers are also cheaper than permanent employees. They also don't do the same jobs as the permanent employees. As well as the day job, they're also in effect relieving their client of some accounting duties. As a freelancer, I do my own PAYE and NI calculations and paperwork, my clients don't have anything to do with it. They just settle invoices as they do with any other supplier. Georgem
  • Score: 0

8:10am Thu 20 Sep 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Georgem wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Wow talk about out of proportion or what ........ mind you it is to be expected from the usual Tory posters.
.
They will do away with Agency workers. These are paid by the agency and in theory employed by the agency and cost a small packet ..... however the agency worker often gets paid on or about the national minimum pay.
.
Doing away with "Freelancers" who command a very high payment, often on day rates, and cost an absolute fortune to carry out the same jobs as the SCC employed.
.
Its a pity but the dear old Echo really spend more time getting quotes from a failed leader rather than establishing the "truth" or perhaps putting more meat on the bone.
Freelancers are also cheaper than permanent employees. They also don't do the same jobs as the permanent employees. As well as the day job, they're also in effect relieving their client of some accounting duties. As a freelancer, I do my own PAYE and NI calculations and paperwork, my clients don't have anything to do with it. They just settle invoices as they do with any other supplier.
Well i dont doubt what you state here .... However i can only speak from my own personal experience.
.
I have "employed" Freelancers on several occasions to carry out specific takes using the specific skills and have paid many hundreds of pounds for a few days work that has been carried out.And not cheaper than an employee
.
In addition I also offer my skills on a Freelance basis and can assure you that i am not cheaper than a permanent employee
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Wow talk about out of proportion or what ........ mind you it is to be expected from the usual Tory posters. . They will do away with Agency workers. These are paid by the agency and in theory employed by the agency and cost a small packet ..... however the agency worker often gets paid on or about the national minimum pay. . Doing away with "Freelancers" who command a very high payment, often on day rates, and cost an absolute fortune to carry out the same jobs as the SCC employed. . Its a pity but the dear old Echo really spend more time getting quotes from a failed leader rather than establishing the "truth" or perhaps putting more meat on the bone.[/p][/quote]Freelancers are also cheaper than permanent employees. They also don't do the same jobs as the permanent employees. As well as the day job, they're also in effect relieving their client of some accounting duties. As a freelancer, I do my own PAYE and NI calculations and paperwork, my clients don't have anything to do with it. They just settle invoices as they do with any other supplier.[/p][/quote]Well i dont doubt what you state here .... However i can only speak from my own personal experience. . I have "employed" Freelancers on several occasions to carry out specific takes using the specific skills and have paid many hundreds of pounds for a few days work that has been carried out.And not cheaper than an employee . In addition I also offer my skills on a Freelance basis and can assure you that i am not cheaper than a permanent employee Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Thu 20 Sep 12

lisa whitemore says...

Graeme Harrison wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments.
agency staff wouldnt get redundancy as they are registered under the agency and not scc
[quote][p][bold]Graeme Harrison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments.[/p][/quote]agency staff wouldnt get redundancy as they are registered under the agency and not scc lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Thu 20 Sep 12

lisa whitemore says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.
that is correct agency staff get paid alot more than council staff... but disagree theyre doing this to help permanent staff and certainly wouldnt believe these lies anyway. They are full of s***!!
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! They get paid more via an agency and the permanent staff have to train them every time they come and go, often with no long term interest or commitment in the job,so the real cost if far more. A stable permanent staff is far better for all.[/p][/quote]that is correct agency staff get paid alot more than council staff... but disagree theyre doing this to help permanent staff and certainly wouldnt believe these lies anyway. They are full of s***!! lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Thu 20 Sep 12

lisa whitemore says...

Independent Thought wrote:
Unfortunately losing 200 temporary staff only makes a small dent in the overall £42m deficit.

My fear is that there will be a lot more jobs that will need to go in order to balance the books.

We will see the true scale of the cuts when the 2013/14 budget comes out for consultation later this year.
time will certainly tell and it isnt going to be good for the people of this city!
[quote][p][bold]Independent Thought[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately losing 200 temporary staff only makes a small dent in the overall £42m deficit. My fear is that there will be a lot more jobs that will need to go in order to balance the books. We will see the true scale of the cuts when the 2013/14 budget comes out for consultation later this year.[/p][/quote]time will certainly tell and it isnt going to be good for the people of this city! lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Thu 20 Sep 12

lisa whitemore says...

southy wrote:
Graeme Harrison wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff!
Yes, but costing less.
No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.
If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments.
Not from SCC that is down to the agency to pay them redundancy and the angency are more likely to move them to another location than pay redandancy unlees there is a one off agreement with SCC and the Agency concered
thats right southy,its agency that pays them therefore scc wont pay redundancy!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graeme Harrison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: It's the agency staff you want to get rid of; some of them are earning in excess of twice the rate of council staff![/p][/quote]Yes, but costing less.[/p][/quote]No the cost is more, the only difference is that there is no redundancy money.[/p][/quote]If they've been employed for a continuous period in excess of 2 years by SCC, they're entitled to redundancy payments.[/p][/quote]Not from SCC that is down to the agency to pay them redundancy and the angency are more likely to move them to another location than pay redandancy unlees there is a one off agreement with SCC and the Agency concered[/p][/quote]thats right southy,its agency that pays them therefore scc wont pay redundancy! lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Thu 20 Sep 12

lisa whitemore says...

loosehead wrote:
Can't you see the left now squirming?
Under the Tory councils wages for those over £17,500 later revised in negotiations to those over £22,000 would take pay cuts starting at 2% going up to 5.5% the same rate the Tory & Liberal councillors took in a pay cut.
the whole reason was to secure weekly bin collections & save jobs.
We heard our Leader say 1-10 refuse jobs to go & fortnightly collections then he accused the Echo of lying?
We warned you then Workers beware but were called all sorts of names.
Royston made no lies he said a figure of job losses which would be made up by temps & voluntary redundancies & then after negotiations with the unions A figure agreed with unions of compulsory redundancies was said.
At no time did he say no redundancies did he?
You have all been lead up the garden path by the Labour Party & the Unions.
Refuse workers if you haven't voted yet then I hope you see you've been conned & vote against the Union & council proposal & get another Union officer(s).
I can see this being far worse as Williams did say 1,500 permanent posts would go on top of Temporary posts so this is the tip of the Iceberg.
totally agree this is just the beginning of worse things to come for people of soton especially whilst williams is our leader! They have not been honest from the start and have proved they will go to any lengths to cover these lies too.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Can't you see the left now squirming? Under the Tory councils wages for those over £17,500 later revised in negotiations to those over £22,000 would take pay cuts starting at 2% going up to 5.5% the same rate the Tory & Liberal councillors took in a pay cut. the whole reason was to secure weekly bin collections & save jobs. We heard our Leader say 1-10 refuse jobs to go & fortnightly collections then he accused the Echo of lying? We warned you then Workers beware but were called all sorts of names. Royston made no lies he said a figure of job losses which would be made up by temps & voluntary redundancies & then after negotiations with the unions A figure agreed with unions of compulsory redundancies was said. At no time did he say no redundancies did he? You have all been lead up the garden path by the Labour Party & the Unions. Refuse workers if you haven't voted yet then I hope you see you've been conned & vote against the Union & council proposal & get another Union officer(s). I can see this being far worse as Williams did say 1,500 permanent posts would go on top of Temporary posts so this is the tip of the Iceberg.[/p][/quote]totally agree this is just the beginning of worse things to come for people of soton especially whilst williams is our leader! They have not been honest from the start and have proved they will go to any lengths to cover these lies too. lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Sat 29 Sep 12

lisa whitemore says...

loosehead wrote:
I was called a liar I was called Southy so please where's my apologise?
Everything I've said has come true now we have to fight to stop this Barmy Williams Labour council
cant see where fighting dick williams will do any good as he and his deciples follow their leader and joe public havnt got a hope in hell of getting any message through.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I was called a liar I was called Southy so please where's my apologise? Everything I've said has come true now we have to fight to stop this Barmy Williams Labour council[/p][/quote]cant see where fighting dick williams will do any good as he and his deciples follow their leader and joe public havnt got a hope in hell of getting any message through. lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

9:30pm Sat 29 Sep 12

loosehead says...

lisa whitemore wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I was called a liar I was called Southy so please where's my apologise?
Everything I've said has come true now we have to fight to stop this Barmy Williams Labour council
cant see where fighting dick williams will do any good as he and his deciples follow their leader and joe public havnt got a hope in hell of getting any message through.
I talked to a guy from one of the rowing clubs today he said if the snowdome was built then under it would have been a brand new Rowing club which the two clubs which are very close would be asked to amalgamate & take over the new facility(rowing) I told him that means it would have been a rowing club a snowdome & would include a small ice rink yet Williams said it had nothing to do with the water when he scrapped it?
How many people knew it was a brand new Rowing facility as well? Williams didn't mention that when he scrapped it did he?
Olympic Legacy? Not under Labour
[quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I was called a liar I was called Southy so please where's my apologise? Everything I've said has come true now we have to fight to stop this Barmy Williams Labour council[/p][/quote]cant see where fighting dick williams will do any good as he and his deciples follow their leader and joe public havnt got a hope in hell of getting any message through.[/p][/quote]I talked to a guy from one of the rowing clubs today he said if the snowdome was built then under it would have been a brand new Rowing club which the two clubs which are very close would be asked to amalgamate & take over the new facility(rowing) I told him that means it would have been a rowing club a snowdome & would include a small ice rink yet Williams said it had nothing to do with the water when he scrapped it? How many people knew it was a brand new Rowing facility as well? Williams didn't mention that when he scrapped it did he? Olympic Legacy? Not under Labour loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree