‘No Cuts’ pair sailed under false colours

Councillors Keith Morrell and Don Thomas

Councillors Keith Morrell and Don Thomas

First published in Readers' Letters

COUNCILLORS D Thomas and K Morrell put themselves forward to be elected as representatives of the Labour Party and its policies, on the basis of which they were duly elected.

When they found themselves at odds with that policy and unable to persuade the rest of the council to follow their private agenda “No Government Cuts” they should have resigned and stood as independents in a by-election.

Instead, they clung on to their seats they had won under the Labour auspices and pursued their own agenda. They sailed under false colours.

Councillor Thomas (Letters, August 20) takes exception to my use of the word “surreptitious” to explain their behaviour. It apparently offends their sensitive nature. A sensitivity that appeared entirely lacking when they reneged on the policies and party under which they were elected.

On election day, indeed there were quite a number of the electorate still under the illusion that Messrs Morrell and Thomas represented Labour.

“No Government Cuts” are brave words but completely empty of content under this Conservative government.

What Messrs Morrell and Thomas have never explained is where they would find the money to keep all the council services and employees if their policies were implemented. Perhaps they would oblige and tell us.

Is it also their policy for a compulsory photo-shoot of them following any happening in Coxford irrespective of the amount of their involvement?

However, in deference to their sensitive natures, I will future consider their political stance as ambiguous instead of surreptitious; a rose by any other name smells the same.

D R SMITH, Southampton.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:24pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Linesman says...

An excellent letter.

No councillor, of any political party, would have wanted to make cuts, but when your income has been drastically reduced by the cuts made by central government, then unless it is the intention to make the council bankrupt, then cuts have to be made.

The difference between the parties is, where the cuts are made, and by how much.
An excellent letter. No councillor, of any political party, would have wanted to make cuts, but when your income has been drastically reduced by the cuts made by central government, then unless it is the intention to make the council bankrupt, then cuts have to be made. The difference between the parties is, where the cuts are made, and by how much. Linesman
  • Score: 7

1:42am Sat 30 Aug 14

Fieldbean says...

Linesman wrote:
An excellent letter.

No councillor, of any political party, would have wanted to make cuts, but when your income has been drastically reduced by the cuts made by central government, then unless it is the intention to make the council bankrupt, then cuts have to be made.

The difference between the parties is, where the cuts are made, and by how much.
Slowly Camron's Coalition Government has with drawn grant funding for Southampton, money required for essential services like adult learning and residential care homes for the elderly(both services ready for the axe).

Once councils have completely had funding withdrawn we will then go to outsourced companies like CAPITA (six month profits of £2.1bn) and donate money so they run our city for us. Brochures for sponsoring services will be printed. For instance, a citizen could choose to sponsor a traffic warden, social worker or perhaps street cleaners will attract public money.

Of course we can lie down and let the Tories steam roller over us, but at what point do we stand up against the cuts?

I am sure Lordswood Cllrs are having to duck and dive to keep their seats but they have more guts than Labour Cllrs (Stephen Barnes-Andrews) who proclaim to be cutting as fast as the Tories are telling Labour to.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: An excellent letter. No councillor, of any political party, would have wanted to make cuts, but when your income has been drastically reduced by the cuts made by central government, then unless it is the intention to make the council bankrupt, then cuts have to be made. The difference between the parties is, where the cuts are made, and by how much.[/p][/quote]Slowly Camron's Coalition Government has with drawn grant funding for Southampton, money required for essential services like adult learning and residential care homes for the elderly(both services ready for the axe). Once councils have completely had funding withdrawn we will then go to outsourced companies like CAPITA (six month profits of £2.1bn) and donate money so they run our city for us. Brochures for sponsoring services will be printed. For instance, a citizen could choose to sponsor a traffic warden, social worker or perhaps street cleaners will attract public money. Of course we can lie down and let the Tories steam roller over us, but at what point do we stand up against the cuts? I am sure Lordswood Cllrs are having to duck and dive to keep their seats but they have more guts than Labour Cllrs (Stephen Barnes-Andrews) who proclaim to be cutting as fast as the Tories are telling Labour to. Fieldbean
  • Score: -2

9:56am Sat 30 Aug 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Fieldbean wrote:
Linesman wrote:
An excellent letter.

No councillor, of any political party, would have wanted to make cuts, but when your income has been drastically reduced by the cuts made by central government, then unless it is the intention to make the council bankrupt, then cuts have to be made.

The difference between the parties is, where the cuts are made, and by how much.
Slowly Camron's Coalition Government has with drawn grant funding for Southampton, money required for essential services like adult learning and residential care homes for the elderly(both services ready for the axe).

Once councils have completely had funding withdrawn we will then go to outsourced companies like CAPITA (six month profits of £2.1bn) and donate money so they run our city for us. Brochures for sponsoring services will be printed. For instance, a citizen could choose to sponsor a traffic warden, social worker or perhaps street cleaners will attract public money.

Of course we can lie down and let the Tories steam roller over us, but at what point do we stand up against the cuts?

I am sure Lordswood Cllrs are having to duck and dive to keep their seats but they have more guts than Labour Cllrs (Stephen Barnes-Andrews) who proclaim to be cutting as fast as the Tories are telling Labour to.
I would hardly suggest that Morrell and Thomas have more guts than the name that you suggest.
.
All they did was to take the cushty way out ....... first sign of a breeze and they jump ship ...... perhaps they would have shown more if they had stayed on board and fought the corner ...... rather than the GUTLESS way out
[quote][p][bold]Fieldbean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: An excellent letter. No councillor, of any political party, would have wanted to make cuts, but when your income has been drastically reduced by the cuts made by central government, then unless it is the intention to make the council bankrupt, then cuts have to be made. The difference between the parties is, where the cuts are made, and by how much.[/p][/quote]Slowly Camron's Coalition Government has with drawn grant funding for Southampton, money required for essential services like adult learning and residential care homes for the elderly(both services ready for the axe). Once councils have completely had funding withdrawn we will then go to outsourced companies like CAPITA (six month profits of £2.1bn) and donate money so they run our city for us. Brochures for sponsoring services will be printed. For instance, a citizen could choose to sponsor a traffic warden, social worker or perhaps street cleaners will attract public money. Of course we can lie down and let the Tories steam roller over us, but at what point do we stand up against the cuts? I am sure Lordswood Cllrs are having to duck and dive to keep their seats but they have more guts than Labour Cllrs (Stephen Barnes-Andrews) who proclaim to be cutting as fast as the Tories are telling Labour to.[/p][/quote]I would hardly suggest that Morrell and Thomas have more guts than the name that you suggest. . All they did was to take the cushty way out ....... first sign of a breeze and they jump ship ...... perhaps they would have shown more if they had stayed on board and fought the corner ...... rather than the GUTLESS way out Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 4

5:50pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Linesman says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Fieldbean wrote:
Linesman wrote:
An excellent letter.

No councillor, of any political party, would have wanted to make cuts, but when your income has been drastically reduced by the cuts made by central government, then unless it is the intention to make the council bankrupt, then cuts have to be made.

The difference between the parties is, where the cuts are made, and by how much.
Slowly Camron's Coalition Government has with drawn grant funding for Southampton, money required for essential services like adult learning and residential care homes for the elderly(both services ready for the axe).

Once councils have completely had funding withdrawn we will then go to outsourced companies like CAPITA (six month profits of £2.1bn) and donate money so they run our city for us. Brochures for sponsoring services will be printed. For instance, a citizen could choose to sponsor a traffic warden, social worker or perhaps street cleaners will attract public money.

Of course we can lie down and let the Tories steam roller over us, but at what point do we stand up against the cuts?

I am sure Lordswood Cllrs are having to duck and dive to keep their seats but they have more guts than Labour Cllrs (Stephen Barnes-Andrews) who proclaim to be cutting as fast as the Tories are telling Labour to.
I would hardly suggest that Morrell and Thomas have more guts than the name that you suggest.
.
All they did was to take the cushty way out ....... first sign of a breeze and they jump ship ...... perhaps they would have shown more if they had stayed on board and fought the corner ...... rather than the GUTLESS way out
They courted popularity.

It sounds good to say 'We are against the cuts', but they did not at the time, or at any time since, say how they would have managed without making any cuts despite the reduced income.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fieldbean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: An excellent letter. No councillor, of any political party, would have wanted to make cuts, but when your income has been drastically reduced by the cuts made by central government, then unless it is the intention to make the council bankrupt, then cuts have to be made. The difference between the parties is, where the cuts are made, and by how much.[/p][/quote]Slowly Camron's Coalition Government has with drawn grant funding for Southampton, money required for essential services like adult learning and residential care homes for the elderly(both services ready for the axe). Once councils have completely had funding withdrawn we will then go to outsourced companies like CAPITA (six month profits of £2.1bn) and donate money so they run our city for us. Brochures for sponsoring services will be printed. For instance, a citizen could choose to sponsor a traffic warden, social worker or perhaps street cleaners will attract public money. Of course we can lie down and let the Tories steam roller over us, but at what point do we stand up against the cuts? I am sure Lordswood Cllrs are having to duck and dive to keep their seats but they have more guts than Labour Cllrs (Stephen Barnes-Andrews) who proclaim to be cutting as fast as the Tories are telling Labour to.[/p][/quote]I would hardly suggest that Morrell and Thomas have more guts than the name that you suggest. . All they did was to take the cushty way out ....... first sign of a breeze and they jump ship ...... perhaps they would have shown more if they had stayed on board and fought the corner ...... rather than the GUTLESS way out[/p][/quote]They courted popularity. It sounds good to say 'We are against the cuts', but they did not at the time, or at any time since, say how they would have managed without making any cuts despite the reduced income. Linesman
  • Score: 4

5:53pm Sat 30 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

It's Laural and Hardy?
It's Laural and Hardy? IronLady2010
  • Score: 5

11:20pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
It's Laural and Hardy?
loosehead and aldermoorboy?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: It's Laural and Hardy?[/p][/quote]loosehead and aldermoorboy? Linesman
  • Score: 4

12:36pm Sun 31 Aug 14

aldermoorboy says...

Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -3

1:24pm Sun 31 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents.

I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party.[/p][/quote]They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents. I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not! IronLady2010
  • Score: -5

3:01pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
If things had remained as they were when they were electioneering, then there is a strong possibility that those promises would have been kept, but when the Tory-led government made cuts to the city's funding in successive years, there was no way that everything promised could be delivered.

If the cuts made by the Tory-led government was not enough, the financial 'black hole' that Royston Smith left, thanks to his financial irresponsibility over the funding, and consequential drain on the city's coffers, has taken its toll on what the current administration have been able to deliver.

Of course, this would not be apparent to someone who views things through blue tinted spectacles.

I note that the Tory-led government, after more than four years in power, are also not delivering on their election promises.

Where they have had a dramatic effect on what Southampton City Council can and cannot deliver, Southampton City Council's actions have no detrimental effect on what Cameron & Co do.

The root cause of local problems emanate from No 10 Downing Street.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party.[/p][/quote]If things had remained as they were when they were electioneering, then there is a strong possibility that those promises would have been kept, but when the Tory-led government made cuts to the city's funding in successive years, there was no way that everything promised could be delivered. If the cuts made by the Tory-led government was not enough, the financial 'black hole' that Royston Smith left, thanks to his financial irresponsibility over the funding, and consequential drain on the city's coffers, has taken its toll on what the current administration have been able to deliver. Of course, this would not be apparent to someone who views things through blue tinted spectacles. I note that the Tory-led government, after more than four years in power, are also not delivering on their election promises. Where they have had a dramatic effect on what Southampton City Council can and cannot deliver, Southampton City Council's actions have no detrimental effect on what Cameron & Co do. The root cause of local problems emanate from No 10 Downing Street. Linesman
  • Score: 3

3:13pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents.

I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not!
For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding.

He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure.

With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'.

Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party.[/p][/quote]They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents. I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not![/p][/quote]For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding. He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure. With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'. Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills. Linesman
  • Score: 6

3:47pm Sun 31 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents.

I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not!
For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding.

He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure.

With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'.

Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.
They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party.[/p][/quote]They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents. I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not![/p][/quote]For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding. He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure. With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'. Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.[/p][/quote]They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely? IronLady2010
  • Score: -4

3:55pm Sun 31 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents.

I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not!
For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding.

He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure.

With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'.

Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.
They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?
Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse!

They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party.[/p][/quote]They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents. I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not![/p][/quote]For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding. He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure. With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'. Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.[/p][/quote]They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?[/p][/quote]Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse! They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story. IronLady2010
  • Score: -5

5:08pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents.

I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not!
For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding.

He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure.

With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'.

Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.
They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?
Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse!

They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story.
The city's accounts are not published on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis.

They are produced at a time when the council is setting its budget for the coming year, and the election was not held at that time, but some considerable time since the previous one was set.

I imagine that when Labour were electioneering they put some element of trust in the claims that Royston Smith had made regarding the funding, and the expected revenue to be received from the projected attendance figures that had been 'reliably predicted.'

When you add to this the extra money that Royston Smith regime had to fork out to get the rubbish removed from the streets, that had piled up thanks to his lack of expertise in personnel management, there was quite a lot of money that had yet to be accounted for, that the current administration has had to deal with, and are still dealing with.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party.[/p][/quote]They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents. I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not![/p][/quote]For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding. He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure. With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'. Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.[/p][/quote]They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?[/p][/quote]Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse! They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story.[/p][/quote]The city's accounts are not published on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis. They are produced at a time when the council is setting its budget for the coming year, and the election was not held at that time, but some considerable time since the previous one was set. I imagine that when Labour were electioneering they put some element of trust in the claims that Royston Smith had made regarding the funding, and the expected revenue to be received from the projected attendance figures that had been 'reliably predicted.' When you add to this the extra money that Royston Smith regime had to fork out to get the rubbish removed from the streets, that had piled up thanks to his lack of expertise in personnel management, there was quite a lot of money that had yet to be accounted for, that the current administration has had to deal with, and are still dealing with. Linesman
  • Score: 4

5:28pm Sun 31 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents.

I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not!
For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding.

He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure.

With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'.

Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.
They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?
Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse!

They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story.
The city's accounts are not published on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis.

They are produced at a time when the council is setting its budget for the coming year, and the election was not held at that time, but some considerable time since the previous one was set.

I imagine that when Labour were electioneering they put some element of trust in the claims that Royston Smith had made regarding the funding, and the expected revenue to be received from the projected attendance figures that had been 'reliably predicted.'

When you add to this the extra money that Royston Smith regime had to fork out to get the rubbish removed from the streets, that had piled up thanks to his lack of expertise in personnel management, there was quite a lot of money that had yet to be accounted for, that the current administration has had to deal with, and are still dealing with.
I have to disagree, all monies and budgets would have been known. How can anyone make promises on speculation.

Royston, whilst the leader at the time, allows the Public Sector workers to manage the accounts.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party.[/p][/quote]They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents. I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not![/p][/quote]For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding. He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure. With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'. Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.[/p][/quote]They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?[/p][/quote]Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse! They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story.[/p][/quote]The city's accounts are not published on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis. They are produced at a time when the council is setting its budget for the coming year, and the election was not held at that time, but some considerable time since the previous one was set. I imagine that when Labour were electioneering they put some element of trust in the claims that Royston Smith had made regarding the funding, and the expected revenue to be received from the projected attendance figures that had been 'reliably predicted.' When you add to this the extra money that Royston Smith regime had to fork out to get the rubbish removed from the streets, that had piled up thanks to his lack of expertise in personnel management, there was quite a lot of money that had yet to be accounted for, that the current administration has had to deal with, and are still dealing with.[/p][/quote]I have to disagree, all monies and budgets would have been known. How can anyone make promises on speculation. Royston, whilst the leader at the time, allows the Public Sector workers to manage the accounts. IronLady2010
  • Score: -5

5:32pm Sun 31 Aug 14

IronLady2010 says...

Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents.

I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not!
For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding.

He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure.

With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'.

Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.
They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?
Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse!

They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story.
The city's accounts are not published on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis.

They are produced at a time when the council is setting its budget for the coming year, and the election was not held at that time, but some considerable time since the previous one was set.

I imagine that when Labour were electioneering they put some element of trust in the claims that Royston Smith had made regarding the funding, and the expected revenue to be received from the projected attendance figures that had been 'reliably predicted.'

When you add to this the extra money that Royston Smith regime had to fork out to get the rubbish removed from the streets, that had piled up thanks to his lack of expertise in personnel management, there was quite a lot of money that had yet to be accounted for, that the current administration has had to deal with, and are still dealing with.
Taking my hat off to any party, who caused the mess?

It wasn't Royston as he was trying to save jobs and services. Now, what we see is even more cuts. We'll agree to disagree. x
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party.[/p][/quote]They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents. I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not![/p][/quote]For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding. He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure. With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'. Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.[/p][/quote]They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?[/p][/quote]Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse! They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story.[/p][/quote]The city's accounts are not published on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis. They are produced at a time when the council is setting its budget for the coming year, and the election was not held at that time, but some considerable time since the previous one was set. I imagine that when Labour were electioneering they put some element of trust in the claims that Royston Smith had made regarding the funding, and the expected revenue to be received from the projected attendance figures that had been 'reliably predicted.' When you add to this the extra money that Royston Smith regime had to fork out to get the rubbish removed from the streets, that had piled up thanks to his lack of expertise in personnel management, there was quite a lot of money that had yet to be accounted for, that the current administration has had to deal with, and are still dealing with.[/p][/quote]Taking my hat off to any party, who caused the mess? It wasn't Royston as he was trying to save jobs and services. Now, what we see is even more cuts. We'll agree to disagree. x IronLady2010
  • Score: -6

7:54pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite.

That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it.

Vote Tory for the honest party.
They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents.

I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not!
For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding.

He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure.

With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'.

Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.
They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?
Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse!

They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story.
The city's accounts are not published on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis.

They are produced at a time when the council is setting its budget for the coming year, and the election was not held at that time, but some considerable time since the previous one was set.

I imagine that when Labour were electioneering they put some element of trust in the claims that Royston Smith had made regarding the funding, and the expected revenue to be received from the projected attendance figures that had been 'reliably predicted.'

When you add to this the extra money that Royston Smith regime had to fork out to get the rubbish removed from the streets, that had piled up thanks to his lack of expertise in personnel management, there was quite a lot of money that had yet to be accounted for, that the current administration has had to deal with, and are still dealing with.
Taking my hat off to any party, who caused the mess?

It wasn't Royston as he was trying to save jobs and services. Now, what we see is even more cuts. We'll agree to disagree. x
Why was Royston trying to save jobs?

Why was it that he found himself in a position where he considered there was a possibility that jobs would be lost?

Do you think that the reason could be that he found that the city's income had been drastically reduced?

If you do not, then what other reason could he have for thinking that jobs may be lost?

If you do think that it was because the city's income had been reduced, who do you think was responsible for cutting that income?

Has the city's income been even further reduced since Royston ceased to be the Leader of Southampton City Council?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Labour lied in 2012 election, they said no job cuts, no service cuts, pensioners discount safe, then did the opposite. That caused Labour to split in two.Labour only care for themselves and they know it. Vote Tory for the honest party.[/p][/quote]They did keep one promise and that was to the Unions at a huge financial cost to the City and the services to us residents. I fail to understand how the Labour administration overlooked the finances before making promises. Is our money safe in their hands? Obviously not![/p][/quote]For a start, when they were making their promises, they were under the impression that Royston Smith was to be believed when he said that the Sea City Museum would be funded by grants and donations, and would not be met by Council funding. He also claimed that, with the projected number of visitors, the museum would be self-funding, but even in the first month that it was open, and receiving plenty of publicity, those figures were never reached, and have since been on a steady decline, never having reached the break-even figure. With those promises and forecasts made by the Tory administration, it makes a mockery of aldermoorboy's slogan of 'Vote Tory for the honest party'. Those Tory promises and predictions were at variance with the truth and the city's tax payers are now picking up the bills.[/p][/quote]They would have had access to all the accounts and information, surely?[/p][/quote]Please don't suggest they made their decisions based on rumour and the local news! That makes them even worse! They would of had full access to the accounts and knew what they were doing, but they failed in the maths. End of story.[/p][/quote]The city's accounts are not published on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis. They are produced at a time when the council is setting its budget for the coming year, and the election was not held at that time, but some considerable time since the previous one was set. I imagine that when Labour were electioneering they put some element of trust in the claims that Royston Smith had made regarding the funding, and the expected revenue to be received from the projected attendance figures that had been 'reliably predicted.' When you add to this the extra money that Royston Smith regime had to fork out to get the rubbish removed from the streets, that had piled up thanks to his lack of expertise in personnel management, there was quite a lot of money that had yet to be accounted for, that the current administration has had to deal with, and are still dealing with.[/p][/quote]Taking my hat off to any party, who caused the mess? It wasn't Royston as he was trying to save jobs and services. Now, what we see is even more cuts. We'll agree to disagree. x[/p][/quote]Why was Royston trying to save jobs? Why was it that he found himself in a position where he considered there was a possibility that jobs would be lost? Do you think that the reason could be that he found that the city's income had been drastically reduced? If you do not, then what other reason could he have for thinking that jobs may be lost? If you do think that it was because the city's income had been reduced, who do you think was responsible for cutting that income? Has the city's income been even further reduced since Royston ceased to be the Leader of Southampton City Council? Linesman
  • Score: 3

7:10am Mon 1 Sep 14

aldermoorboy says...

In 2012 Labour made promises they did not keep, that was wrong, they misled the public.
This led to the split in Labour, you could say it was Keith/Don who were keeping their word and the rest of Labour went back on their word.
You/Labour do your reputation no good by not coming clean on this issue and say sorry.
Facing the truth is difficult some times and it shows ones true personality.
Vote Tory for the honest guy, I will love it if he wins.
In 2012 Labour made promises they did not keep, that was wrong, they misled the public. This led to the split in Labour, you could say it was Keith/Don who were keeping their word and the rest of Labour went back on their word. You/Labour do your reputation no good by not coming clean on this issue and say sorry. Facing the truth is difficult some times and it shows ones true personality. Vote Tory for the honest guy, I will love it if he wins. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -3

8:04am Mon 1 Sep 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
In 2012 Labour made promises they did not keep, that was wrong, they misled the public.
This led to the split in Labour, you could say it was Keith/Don who were keeping their word and the rest of Labour went back on their word.
You/Labour do your reputation no good by not coming clean on this issue and say sorry.
Facing the truth is difficult some times and it shows ones true personality.
Vote Tory for the honest guy, I will love it if he wins.
"Vote Tory for the honest guy."

Pre-election promise by David Cameron.

"THE NHS IS SAFE IN OUR HANDS."

Try facing the tuth of that promise!

Trust the Tories?

You must be joking!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: In 2012 Labour made promises they did not keep, that was wrong, they misled the public. This led to the split in Labour, you could say it was Keith/Don who were keeping their word and the rest of Labour went back on their word. You/Labour do your reputation no good by not coming clean on this issue and say sorry. Facing the truth is difficult some times and it shows ones true personality. Vote Tory for the honest guy, I will love it if he wins.[/p][/quote]"Vote Tory for the honest guy." Pre-election promise by David Cameron. "THE NHS IS SAFE IN OUR HANDS." Try facing the tuth of that promise! Trust the Tories? You must be joking! Linesman
  • Score: 1

8:59am Mon 1 Sep 14

aldermoorboy says...

Linesman, I note you say nothing about the Labour lies, you lose credibility as does your party for not facing up to the truth.
2012 Labour locally misled the public, caused political strike ( showing they don't care about the public) and when in power rewarded themselves. Bad sad Labour care only for themselves.
If Labour really care for the poor, they would reduce the number of councillors, stop paying the unions with public many and spend it on good causes.
Royston is honest and brave and stands up for all in Southampton and win or lose will remain local.
Linesman, I note you say nothing about the Labour lies, you lose credibility as does your party for not facing up to the truth. 2012 Labour locally misled the public, caused political strike ( showing they don't care about the public) and when in power rewarded themselves. Bad sad Labour care only for themselves. If Labour really care for the poor, they would reduce the number of councillors, stop paying the unions with public many and spend it on good causes. Royston is honest and brave and stands up for all in Southampton and win or lose will remain local. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

4:37pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman, I note you say nothing about the Labour lies, you lose credibility as does your party for not facing up to the truth.
2012 Labour locally misled the public, caused political strike ( showing they don't care about the public) and when in power rewarded themselves. Bad sad Labour care only for themselves.
If Labour really care for the poor, they would reduce the number of councillors, stop paying the unions with public many and spend it on good causes.
Royston is honest and brave and stands up for all in Southampton and win or lose will remain local.
Labour made promises in 2012, on the basis of information that they had at the time.

Since taking power, they have found that the Promises (R) Promises made by the previous administration, that the Sea City Museum would be funded by donations and grants was a LIE.

They also found to their cost that the projected figures for attendance at the aforementioned museum, that it was claimed would prouduce enough income to run and maintain it, were never close to being met. This has added another unexpected drain on the Council's finances that the current administration could not have anticipated.

When you add the fact that the Tory-led government has also been cutting the grant on an annual basis, and to make life even more difficult, has put a ceiling on the amount that council taxes can be raised, promises that were made in good faith, have been torpedoed by the actions of both Central government and the previous local Tory administration.

Your opinion on Royston and his honesty was not shared by the majority of Southampton's citizens at the last council elections.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman, I note you say nothing about the Labour lies, you lose credibility as does your party for not facing up to the truth. 2012 Labour locally misled the public, caused political strike ( showing they don't care about the public) and when in power rewarded themselves. Bad sad Labour care only for themselves. If Labour really care for the poor, they would reduce the number of councillors, stop paying the unions with public many and spend it on good causes. Royston is honest and brave and stands up for all in Southampton and win or lose will remain local.[/p][/quote]Labour made promises in 2012, on the basis of information that they had at the time. Since taking power, they have found that the Promises (R) Promises made by the previous administration, that the Sea City Museum would be funded by donations and grants was a LIE. They also found to their cost that the projected figures for attendance at the aforementioned museum, that it was claimed would prouduce enough income to run and maintain it, were never close to being met. This has added another unexpected drain on the Council's finances that the current administration could not have anticipated. When you add the fact that the Tory-led government has also been cutting the grant on an annual basis, and to make life even more difficult, has put a ceiling on the amount that council taxes can be raised, promises that were made in good faith, have been torpedoed by the actions of both Central government and the previous local Tory administration. Your opinion on Royston and his honesty was not shared by the majority of Southampton's citizens at the last council elections. Linesman
  • Score: 6

5:16pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy.
On the subject of broken promises.

David Cameron, in virtually every pre-election speech, stated 'The NHS is Safe in our hands.'

With that in mind, perhaps you could explain today's news that many hospitals are under-staffed, with patient/nurse ratio below the recommended levels.

The Tory-led government has been in power for more than Four Years so Please Do NOT try to place the blame for that on Gordon Brown's government.
aldermoorboy. On the subject of broken promises. David Cameron, in virtually every pre-election speech, stated 'The NHS is Safe in our hands.' With that in mind, perhaps you could explain today's news that many hospitals are under-staffed, with patient/nurse ratio below the recommended levels. The Tory-led government has been in power for more than Four Years so Please Do NOT try to place the blame for that on Gordon Brown's government. Linesman
  • Score: 1

7:12am Tue 2 Sep 14

aldermoorboy says...

NHS Wales under Labour control in huge trouble, Tories care Labour care for themselves.
NHS Wales under Labour control in huge trouble, Tories care Labour care for themselves. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -3

9:52am Tue 2 Sep 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
NHS Wales under Labour control in huge trouble, Tories care Labour care for themselves.
NHS UK has its problems, despite Cameron's pre-election promise that it would be safe in his hands.

Only yesterday we were informed that the nurse/patient ratio was now falling short of the recommended figures.

Another Tory promise that has been broken?
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: NHS Wales under Labour control in huge trouble, Tories care Labour care for themselves.[/p][/quote]NHS UK has its problems, despite Cameron's pre-election promise that it would be safe in his hands. Only yesterday we were informed that the nurse/patient ratio was now falling short of the recommended figures. Another Tory promise that has been broken? Linesman
  • Score: 1

1:26pm Tue 2 Sep 14

aldermoorboy says...

My family have just used the NHS it was great.
My family have just used the NHS it was great. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
NHS Wales under Labour control in huge trouble, Tories care Labour care for themselves.
NHS UK has its problems, despite Cameron's pre-election promise that it would be safe in his hands.

Only yesterday we were informed that the nurse/patient ratio was now falling short of the recommended figures.

Another Tory promise that has been broken?
As we know Linesman ..... The Tories just DONT CARE
.
Proven time and time again
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: NHS Wales under Labour control in huge trouble, Tories care Labour care for themselves.[/p][/quote]NHS UK has its problems, despite Cameron's pre-election promise that it would be safe in his hands. Only yesterday we were informed that the nurse/patient ratio was now falling short of the recommended figures. Another Tory promise that has been broken?[/p][/quote]As we know Linesman ..... The Tories just DONT CARE . Proven time and time again Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

2:34pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
My family have just used the NHS it was great.
We all know the people inside the NHS are great ...... But it's foundations are systematically being taken apart by the uncaring Tories .......
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: My family have just used the NHS it was great.[/p][/quote]We all know the people inside the NHS are great ...... But it's foundations are systematically being taken apart by the uncaring Tories ....... Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

4:27pm Tue 2 Sep 14

aldermoorboy says...

Disagree
Disagree aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

10:28am Wed 3 Sep 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
My family have just used the NHS it was great.
So you are grateful to the Labour Government that brought it into being, but vote Tory, the party that is privatising it by stealth.

What a complicated person you are.

I am sure that you are really loosehead, posting under another name.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: My family have just used the NHS it was great.[/p][/quote]So you are grateful to the Labour Government that brought it into being, but vote Tory, the party that is privatising it by stealth. What a complicated person you are. I am sure that you are really loosehead, posting under another name. Linesman
  • Score: 1

4:04pm Thu 4 Sep 14

aldermoorboy says...

Linesman, yes I am grateful Labour brought us the NHS, Labour have done many good things as have the Tories.

I don't think it matters if the NHS is run either private or public sectors, it is who ever runs it best.
Linesman, yes I am grateful Labour brought us the NHS, Labour have done many good things as have the Tories. I don't think it matters if the NHS is run either private or public sectors, it is who ever runs it best. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

11:38am Mon 8 Sep 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Linesman, yes I am grateful Labour brought us the NHS, Labour have done many good things as have the Tories.

I don't think it matters if the NHS is run either private or public sectors, it is who ever runs it best.
The difference being that, being run by the private sector, shareholders want a return on their investment. With the public, the return on their investment, in the form of the their NI contributions, is in the form of the service and treatment that they receive.

I have no idea of how old you are, but I remember the pre-NHS days, when a visit to the doctor cost 7/6d, which was a lot of money for a great many people, which meant that many people who needed treatment did not get it until it was too late, because they could not afford to see the doctor when they first had a problem.

I do not want to see a return to those days, but 'privatisation by stealth' fills me with that fear.

I truly appreciate the NHS and what it has done for the health of this country.

For many, that have only known the NHS, take it for granted, and think that privatising some or most of it would improve it. If they had experienced pre-NHS days, I am certain that they would not hold that opinion.

Pre-NHS days WERE privatised medicine.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Linesman, yes I am grateful Labour brought us the NHS, Labour have done many good things as have the Tories. I don't think it matters if the NHS is run either private or public sectors, it is who ever runs it best.[/p][/quote]The difference being that, being run by the private sector, shareholders want a return on their investment. With the public, the return on their investment, in the form of the their NI contributions, is in the form of the service and treatment that they receive. I have no idea of how old you are, but I remember the pre-NHS days, when a visit to the doctor cost 7/6d, which was a lot of money for a great many people, which meant that many people who needed treatment did not get it until it was too late, because they could not afford to see the doctor when they first had a problem. I do not want to see a return to those days, but 'privatisation by stealth' fills me with that fear. I truly appreciate the NHS and what it has done for the health of this country. For many, that have only known the NHS, take it for granted, and think that privatising some or most of it would improve it. If they had experienced pre-NHS days, I am certain that they would not hold that opinion. Pre-NHS days WERE privatised medicine. Linesman
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree