Tory ‘no’ to leisure plea (From Daily Echo)

Asking Tories to rethink on privatisation is like asking the vultures to give up on meat. Crazy ideas and Conservatives are the two sides of the same coin.
Had Nulabour not made the mantra of Thatcherism respectable some of us would have taken their lip service to fight against privatisation seriously?
Only way put an end to these ideas is for people to vote for those who genuinely believe in good old Labour policies, which New Labour has betrayed.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Asking Tories to rethink on privatisation is like asking the vultures to give up on meat. Crazy ideas and Conservatives are the two sides of the same coin.
Had Nulabour not made the mantra of Thatcherism respectable some of us would have taken their lip service to fight against privatisation seriously?
Only way put an end to these ideas is for people to vote for those who genuinely believe in good old Labour policies, which New Labour has betrayed.

By June you will find out how much of the electorate you appeal to. Not long to wait now.

I find it ridiculous that the Tories said that no 'alternative' was put forward! The alternative is to leave our leisure faculties the hell alone! If it aint broke don't fix it!

All seems to have gone quiet about the art sell off too (another unpopular move)! but hey, don't bother listening to residents will you....

I'm looking forward to when denham has to listen to residents in may. He'll learn what we think of his parasitic behaviour funding a millionaire lifestyle whilst disrespecting our armed forces.

senseofsouthampton wrote:
I'm looking forward to when denham has to listen to residents in may. He'll learn what we think of his parasitic behaviour funding a millionaire lifestyle whilst disrespecting our armed forces.

Well you're entitled to your vote, same as we are. But twisting things for your own ends, i.e. millionaire lifestyle LOL! if you're going to throw those accusations about, at least offer up some proof! Disrespecting our armed forces? like when he left the cabinet after objecting to the Iraq War? hmmm yeah. People have opinions of course and quite rightly that's why we live in a democracy but to accuse him of that is just plain daft. See George Osborne who DOES lead a millionaire lifestyle still had to pay back some money, and many others besides. Unfortunately, John D and Alan W haven't been bad enough (!) so that's why people have to dreg up other stuff. Depends whether we vote for the person or the party. Personally, i won't be voting Tory after what I've witnessed lately I can tell you and I was waivering, particularly as DC has been quite outspoken on disability issues.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

senseofsouthampton wrote:
I'm looking forward to when denham has to listen to residents in may. He'll learn what we think of his parasitic behaviour funding a millionaire lifestyle whilst disrespecting our armed forces.

Well you're entitled to your vote, same as we are. But twisting things for your own ends, i.e. millionaire lifestyle LOL! if you're going to throw those accusations about, at least offer up some proof! Disrespecting our armed forces? like when he left the cabinet after objecting to the Iraq War? hmmm yeah. People have opinions of course and quite rightly that's why we live in a democracy but to accuse him of that is just plain daft. See George Osborne who DOES lead a millionaire lifestyle still had to pay back some money, and many others besides. Unfortunately, John D and Alan W haven't been bad enough (!) so that's why people have to dreg up other stuff. Depends whether we vote for the person or the party. Personally, i won't be voting Tory after what I've witnessed lately I can tell you and I was waivering, particularly as DC has been quite outspoken on disability issues.

Millionaire lifestyle-he's on £144k a year, google cabinet minister salaries if you don't believe me. That salary means he's taking home more than the annual Market interest on £1m - hence millionaire lifestyle. Despite this he still expected the humble taxpayer to fork out for his rug, his armchair and a massive painting bill.
Disrespecting the armed forces- I am referring to the day he lost my vote. That was the day he couldn't be bothered to turn up to the tiger's homecoming parade. Those lads had been putting their lives on the line day in day out for months at the behest of a government that denham is part of and he couldn't be bothered. I'd say that was pretty disrespectful by the dictionary definition.
I hope I've answered your queries satisfactorily but please let me know if I can be of further assistance

freemantle girl, where you waivering when you had slagged off local councillors and admitted that your sister worked for Mr Denham?

Forget the slanging match about Denham. The article is about leisure services. The key point is that they are SERVICES to the public, provided so that we can all enjoy them should we want to. They are not supposed to make a profit - they are not operated by private companies to do so. The services are paid for from council tax so that all can enjoy them at a reasonable price. This move will put the management of these services into the hands of private enterprise. The result will be rises in prices for all leisure activities as the management company will need to cover their costs and make a profit for their onwers/shareholders. Every day we see comments on this forum moaning about what the council and councillors are doing. I'd just ask one question - how many of you moaners actually voted at the last local elections ? If you didn't vote don't moan, you have no right to. There's an old saying - the people get the government they deserve.

Can I ask a really simple question?
Other councils outsource their leisure centres but they are still open aren't they?

I would have major problems if the council wanted to actually close down facilities but as they aren't what is the problem?

MrGMan wrote:
Can I ask a really simple question? Other councils outsource their leisure centres but they are still open aren't they? I would have major problems if the council wanted to actually close down facilities but as they aren't what is the problem?

The issue is that the management company will have to turn a profit on the deal. To do this they will either have to impose higher prices for leisure activities or cut costs - leading inevitably to reduced quality of service.

Carpe Diem wrote:

MrGMan wrote:
Can I ask a really simple question? Other councils outsource their leisure centres but they are still open aren't they? I would have major problems if the council wanted to actually close down facilities but as they aren't what is the problem?

The issue is that the management company will have to turn a profit on the deal. To do this they will either have to impose higher prices for leisure activities or cut costs - leading inevitably to reduced quality of service.

what the council will not say, over the 15 year contract, the council will lose out more than £8 million, its all about the quick buck again, and who loses out the tax payer, because they will have to pay extra to cover the short fall over the 15 years.

If the existing,leisure, service is running at a loss presumably the deficit is being covered by those of us who pay Council Tax.
Why should this be so? Should those that use the facilities not pay the proper cost

I always enjoy "the depth of public opposition" statistics in the "Echo". A petition with 2800 names in a City of nearly a quarter a million.That shold terrify the Councillors
Contextual data on the recent Mori Place Survey showed that 48% of the City were satisfied with the sports/leisure facitities,20% were not.A further analysis showed that of those responding 33% actually used the facilities;67% had either not used the facilities within the last month or had never done so.
Was the split on the petition the same?

15 year deal? what if someone comes along in the meantime and can do a better job?

Ancient David wrote:
If the existing,leisure, service is running at a loss presumably the deficit is being covered by those of us who pay Council Tax.
Why should this be so? Should those that use the facilities not pay the proper cost

I always enjoy "the depth of public opposition" statistics in the "Echo". A petition with 2800 names in a City of nearly a quarter a million.That shold terrify the Councillors
Contextual data on the recent Mori Place Survey showed that 48% of the City were satisfied with the sports/leisure facitities,20% were not.A further analysis showed that of those responding 33% actually used the facilities;67% had either not used the facilities within the last month or had never done so.
Was the split on the petition the same?

not all off it makes a loss, some of it makes profits, its the profits that some make that helps to keep the other parts that make a loss to stay open, what the council doing here is selling some of the parts that make a profit but keeping all the parts that dont make a profit.
this is so they can turn round at a later date and close it because the council losing money over it, then sell it to a private developer at a cheap rate.

My point it that people still use their local swimming pools and gyms elsewhere in the country so where is the proof that suddenly our leisure centres will become so expensive that no one can afford them?

MrGMan wrote:
My point it that people still use their local swimming pools and gyms elsewhere in the country so where is the proof that suddenly our leisure centres will become so expensive that no one can afford them?

just take a look at whats happen in the pass with any privatizing.

MrGMan wrote:
My point it that people still use their local swimming pools and gyms elsewhere in the country so where is the proof that suddenly our leisure centres will become so expensive that no one can afford them?

The article states that John Hannides expects the deal to bring extra investment. Any company investing capital in this venture will only do so as long as there is an adequate return on that capital. As I said before, the only way to achieve that is to increase prices or cut costs. They're not in this game for pure philanthropy, they are in it to make money. Take off your rose-tinted specs.

southy wrote:

MrGMan wrote:
My point it that people still use their local swimming pools and gyms elsewhere in the country so where is the proof that suddenly our leisure centres will become so expensive that no one can afford them?

just take a look at whats happen in the pass with any privatizing.

Look what happened in the past to local authority housing. People bought their council houses to join the property owning classes and make a profit when they sold them.

still guessing derek, hint our family been living in this house ever since it first got built in the 50's, that jealous streak is showing more and more. keep it up it will consume you in the end.

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:

southy wrote:

MrGMan wrote: My point it that people still use their local swimming pools and gyms elsewhere in the country so where is the proof that suddenly our leisure centres will become so expensive that no one can afford them?

just take a look at whats happen in the pass with any privatizing.

Look what happened in the past to local authority housing. People bought their council houses to join the property owning classes and make a profit when they sold them.

And many had to sell the former Council homes because they could not afford to pay exceptionally high interest rates during misrule by the Tories., or because they’d lost their jobs when that woman Thatcher was the prime minister. Was she not deeply in love with unemployment?

So basically other areas still have swimming pools and leisure centres that people are able to afford and visit.....