Are the Lib Dems broken.

[DJKillaQueen]

I've never been under a different username. What are you talking about?

Of course James is human. But a pot calling a kettle black in politics is always asking for it. He needs to stick to arguing the merits or vice versa of any given issue or matter. The moment he starts to embillish it with irrelevant criticism of the opposition he's lost any credibility imo.

The council publish accounts in various forms as they have to do so by law and they are not hard to find at all

Budget Book

The call centre is referred to by the concil as 'the contact centre' btw.

Now as to what is any saving the contact/ call centre makes...it doesn't. It was designed to improve efficiency in the same way relocating council offices to Tooley Street has done. But the truth is that it handles too small a percentage of the councils calls to be making any real difference.

The types of calls it takes encompass some 200 different services. So if we say that for arguements sake those 2.4 million calls annually break down as 12000 calls per service per annum and that we then break that down by working days...it amounts to just 37 calls per sevice per day. No staff were fired because their department suddenly had 37 less calls to take each day!

So the consensus is that any so called efficency in enabling current staff to do other stuff instead of answering the phone hasn't yet materialised, because the traffic to the call centre is so low.

Edited to add, this is a debate that has been raging for some years and many councillors form all parties are not happy with the costings. About 400K of the budget covers the three one stop shops (which are good value for the level of traffic they handle). So that leaves 13 million paying annually for the company that provides the call centre services.....well on that level of calls it means the council are paying them around a fiver for every call they take!

[StraferJack]

You edited twice and still you left in some weird bit where you deny changing usernames even tho i never accused you of any such thing. What I accused you of was bringing irrelevancies into a debate. That is what I was talking about.

[DJKillaQueen]

Oh I see.. I thought you were suggesting I'd changed usernames...my misunderstanding there - I apologise for that.

I edited twice to add more relevant information just in case anyone wants to argue that opposite. Pretty hard to do so of course when all the figures come from the councils own published accounts. I rarely 'lob' numbers around without knowing what I'm talking about.

[thomastillingthe3rd]

" I'm against sure thing elections and safe seats it leads to complacency a d taking residents for granted which hopefully ill never succumb to. " !!!

Oh well that fell on deaf ears, more of the same then....pin the tail on the donkey for me plse.

And strafer please get a grip " But of all the local councillors, here he is opening himself up every day. I take my hat off to him for that at least " he is the only one that the moderator has allowed to have his own thread ! .....

Hey guess what >>Simon Cowell only does xfactor becuase he just wants to really discover talented people ???

[Vilmos]

We have a coalition government because that is what the electorate wanted.

No party won an overall majority so it was either go back to the electorate and ask them to think again (not a popular move) or negotiate a coalition. I think we know enough about what went on behind the closed doors while the parties were negotiating, and I think it is clear that Ed Balls took a very arrogant stance, almost expecting the Lib Dems to rubber stamp Labour policy. The Tories on the other hand were prepared to talk on an equal basis with the Lib Dems.

We have little experience in this country of coalition governments. There is a lot of horse trading while they put together a manifesto that represents all parties concerned and sacred cows are sacrificed on all sides until the negotiators have a working agreement to go forward on.

I have never voted Tory in my life, but I was of the opinion that the Lib Dems took the best offer. And don't think things around the economy would have been much different if Labour had retained power. We would still have been facing swinging cuts across the board, and the Lib Dems would still have had to relinquish their promise of doing away with Student fees.

[DJKillaQueen]

Hang on...just where did the electorate vote for a coalition?????

Also you are talking utter rubbish about Ed Balls. The fact was that a coalition with Labour would not have had an overall majority anyway so it was never really an option.

I think you are right on the issues surrounding the economy but there is little doubt that the Lib Dems have been damaged by their alliance and little doubt that Nick Clegg is driven by personal ambition as much as anything else. He never had any kind of substantial support form the electorate to begin with either...his party made little improvement of past elections at the general election. Imo he has used the opportunity to have influence, but let's not kid ourselves that he represents a mandate for any large proportion of the electorate.

[DJKillaQueen]

Maybe this is what finally breaks them?

Electoral Boundary Changes

[thomastillingthe3rd]

God that pygmy really did some deal there !

Also only just stopped laughing at the BBC 6 opening headlines.

1. " The IMF says that the Con/Dem plan is 'appropriate' and its not the time to change"

2. " The head of the IMF appears in a New Court to deny charges of attempted rape, sexual assualt + imprisonment. Should he be convicted he faces 25years in prison

3. " Vince Cable warns unions that should they strike over cuts then the Con/Dem's will " further increase anti trade union laws. Already the worst in the western world.

its bloody laughable if it were not so serious.

[Loz]

thomastillingthe3rd Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also only just stopped laughing at the BBC 6

> opening headlines.

>

> 1. " The IMF says that the Con/Dem plan is

> 'appropriate' and its not the time to change"

Why is that funny? That an independent major economic organisation might disagree with your assessment of the economy?

> 2. " The head of the IMF appears in a New Court to

> deny charges of attempted rape, sexual assualt +

> imprisonment. Should he be convicted he faces

> 25years in prison

Why is that funny?

> 3. " Vince Cable warns unions that should they

> strike over cuts then the Con/Dem's will " further

> increase anti trade union laws. Already the worst

> in the western world.

Why is that funny? Why should trade unions be able to strike for purely political reasons? What is their argument? "We think that you are damaging the economy so we'll jump in and do it first?" Just stupid. Really, you'd think they are people out there just wishing and hoping the economy will fail.

Unions can be a power for good, but whilst there are morons like Bob Crow out there, then there will always be argument for tougher trade union laws. You'd think the unions would have learnt by now - you can run rampant under Labour, but piss around with the Tories and they will be slapped down hard.

[Brendan]

And there you have the main reason the tories are going all guns blazing for the Human Rights Act. The simple yet powerful right to unionise which Article 11 gives to employees.

Forget all their cited examples of apparent injustices in the criminal area thrown up by the HRA. Some of these have limited merit but many of them are either half truths or not really that unjust when you look at the merits of the case. At least not more so than what English law is capable of producing without any assistance from the HRA.

Anyway the tory demographic is hardly affected by what they see as the limp-wristed, politically-correct treatment of criminals under the HRA. Other than that ideologically it puts their noses out of joint if people they see as different and/or weaker are not either controlled or stamped on.

Unions however can be a real pain in the arse.*

But this is all another discussion completely.

*Disclaimer: the author is not pro-union merely pro-the right to unionise.

[Chippy Minton]

Can you name any example of a strike that is held "purely for politcal reasons" ? Striking is a last resort once all other efforts to resolve a dispute have been exhausted.

You ask what is their argument, but then state it is: "We think that you are damaging the economy so we'll jump in and do it first?" Just stupid." When has this ever been an argument by workers on strike? Do you really think that people go on strike because of their political beliefs? The overwheming majority of people go on strike when they face losing their job, pension, pay, conditions etc!

Further, how can you claim the unions "run rampant under Labour" ? Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister that introduced masses of anti-trade union legislation in this country yet both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did nothing about reppealing this when they were in Downing Street. Yes, many unions have a historic link to Labour, but with the RMT already severing its tie and others considering disaffiliation, I don't think you can say they run rampant.

BTW, if you are talking about the "50% requirement" as a tougher trade union law which has been mooted by Boris and some of his Tory colleagues recently, consider this - if the same princple was applied to national, local and European elections in this country there would be swathes of results that would be rendered null and void!

[thomastillingthe3rd]

I agree, thank god for some intelligent comments.

This woman Loz is clearly an idiot persuaded only by the stupid right wing copy that she reads. If she Knew anything about Bob Crow and what he has achieved she would realise that the only bloody moron is herself and her limited grasp on life. As for run rampant under Labour, what bloody planet is she on? Labour actually rolled back some laws to make it harder. What she is actually banging on about is losing your right to 'withdraw your labour', its fascism dearest whichever way you dress it up.

If she can't see the irony in those 3 headlines then that says it all. Some of this lot have had it far too easy on this forum for way to long, its about time some of them got slapped down and hard. If they dont like it, then they should follow their moronic mate Huguenot and switch to invisible. Then finally they can get to exist in their perfect isolation.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKilla queen,

The councils call centre was established several years prior to 2006. I stood and was elected in 2006.

No year has seen Southwark Council spend ?100M setting up the call centre in a private company. I don't know how much it costs to run the call centre each year but revealingly Southwark Labour have made no proposals to close it or insource it.

[Loz]

Interesting you assume I'm female, TT3. Says a lot about your prejudices.

[Loz]

thomastillingthe3rd Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This woman Loz is clearly an idiot persuaded only by the stupid right wing copy that she reads.

That's the first time I've heard the Guardian called that. But everything is relative I suppose. I imagine you consider Marx to be a neo-con.

> if she Knew anything about Bob Crow and what he has achieved she would realise that the only bloody

> moron is herself and her limited grasp on life.

Apart from holding London to ransom on a semi-regular basis on some banal triviality, prey tell what are the Magnificent Achievements of Crow?

Besides, unionism is dying, with membership at less than half of what it was in 1979 (about 6.5 million, as compared with over 13 million). People are voting with their feet. Idiots like Crow are part of the cause of that, as are the BA strikers.

> What she is actually banging on about is losing your right to 'withdraw your

> labour', its fascism dearest whichever way you dress it up.

Nope - the power the withdraw your labour is an important tenet of society. The right to abuse that is not. Crow abuses that right, it should be taken away from him.

> If she can't see the irony in those 3 headlines then that says it all.

Are you using the Alanis Morissette definition of 'irony'?

> Some of this lot have had it far too easy on this forum for way to long, its about time some of them got

> slapped down and hard. If they dont like it, then they should follow their moronic mate Huguenot and switch to

> invisible. Then finally they can get to exist in their perfect isolation.

Actually, I'd like it if you can find someone to put forward an intelligent debate on your behalf. So when you find someone capable of 'slapping me down', tell them to drop by. They'll be more than welcome. Meanwhile, your Class Revolution 101 clich?s and playground level insults will just be laughed at. Again. :))

[thomastillingthe3rd]

oh how you walked into that one you little divy !

Its cause you act like a byyyaattch ! so now you get slapped.

night night muppet.

[Loz]

Worst defence ever: "Yeah, um, I meant it all along just to test you."

[Chippy Minton]

Whilst you may view issues like health and safety, pay, terms and conditions "banal triviality" I don't think the 80,000 members of the RMT that democratically vote on such issues see it the same way. Whether you think a dispute is justified or not, it is the job of the RMT/Bob Crow (and any other union) to represent its members in order to protect their working conditions. You may not think Bob Crow has any "magnificent achievements" but I bet RMT members - the people that pay his salary - don't agree. He's responsible for increasing his union's membership by a third at a time when you rightly point out union membership is falling, he's protected countless members' jobs/terms and conditions and increased his union's profile. I'd bet my mortgage he'd win hands down any election for General Secretary of the RMT if he stands again.

With regard to the issue of "unionism dying," I can't believe Bob Crow/BA strikers are the cause of this like you seem to think. Like I've said, Bob Crow is responsible for actually increasing membership in his union and I just don't believe that any significant number of teachers, civil servants, nurses etc would resign/not join the NUT, PCS or Unison for example, because of the activities of the RMT/BA workers and others in different workplaces. Indeed, you could argue that Crow's success in his own sector would encourage people in other fields to actually join their respective union.

The real reason for the decline in union membership is more to do with issues such as the decline in UK manufacturing, globalisation/multi-nationalism, the shift to a more transient and migrant workforce over the last 30 years and anti-union legalisation introduced by Margaret Thatcher?s government.

[Loz]

I'm sure if I was an RMT member I would think Crow was doing an excellent job. Just as if I was a partner at Goldman Sachs I would think their leader was doing a good job filling my bank account. But that doesn't mean either of them are doing "good" in the wider sense.

The problem with some unions today - the RMT in particular - is they go out of their way to piss off the public. Unions in other countries have a bit more imagination when it comes to industrial disputes, but for Crow it is to try to hold the public to ransom whenever possible. Just imagine if they announced that they were going to refuse to man gatelines (meaning they have to be left open) and not collect penalty fares for the day. They would make management sit up and keep the public on side. But, no, it's just the blundering Neanderthal "STRIKE!!" mentality.

And that is why tougher union laws will be generally applauded (though not universally, by any means). The unions have brought it upon themselves by consistently pissing off the general public. They should not expect our support when the crunch comes. And they won't get it.

[Loz]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can you name any example of a strike that is held

> "purely for politcal reasons" ? Striking is a last

> resort once all other efforts to resolve a dispute

> have been exhausted.

Sorry - meant to reply to this, but got sidetracked...

Crow has been agitating for a general strike for a while. See here from last year. An entirely political stunt.

[Marmora Man]

Whilst you may view issues like health and safety, pay, terms and conditions "banal triviality" I don't think the 80,000 members of the RMT that democratically vote on such issues see it the same way.

Nowadays in UK there is sufficient and appropriate legislation in place to protect employees on these issues - as a result of many years effective trades union and other activity. This success has, largely, made the need for trades unions redundant.

One man's "protecting jobs" is another man's "overmanning". The RMT is a prime example of this - where on the Tube, on railways and on ferries the union has agitated and gone on strike to delay, circumvent and avoid necessary and appropriate changes to staffing. EG - currently in Scotland the RMT is proposing to strike to protect the jobs of 18 members that used to operate a now closed ferry. If the work has gone it is illogical to retain the workers.

Also - tube drivers - as a result of Bob Crow's hard line tactics and Ken Livingstone's craven indulgence of them - now earn very much more than a London nurse (somewhere between 50% - 100% more) for a job that requires little in the way of unique skills, ability or knowledge.

[Chippy Minton]

The unions don't go out of their way to piss the public off, although obviously some disputes will inevitably do this. You probably notice the few high profile disputes more because you are affected. You live in London, so are obviously more likely to be aware of RMT strikes and the BA strike was high profile because it stopped people going on holiday, but every day there are dozens of strikes throughout the country that never get reported because the "public" aren't directly affected. What do mean by doing good in a wide sense? It's not the job of the RMT to do good for the general public - that is the job of the employers i.e. TfL, the train operators etc because they are the service providers!

You are exactly right; Crow's talk of a general strike is just talk and is a political stunt. A general strike would be illegal in this country, so again I ask - show me an example of an actual strike that is a political stunt? The "imagination" you refer to in other countries is largely down to the stronger industrial relations law in continental Europe that leads to much more strike action than we generally see. UK and other countries' laws mean there isn't a level playing in industrial relations; indeed some countries even have the right to strike written into their constitution.

Your arrogance by seemingly making a distinction between the general public and union members with your comment "They should not expect our support when the crunch comes. And they won't get it" is pretty shocking. Just because you don't appear to be a union member and union membership is in decline, there are still large chunks of the working population that are. I don't believe tougher anti-union laws would be generally applauded. We already have some of the toughest anti-union law in Europe, the Labour Party (which was the democratically elected of government for the 13 years prior to the last) didn't want to do this and even the current Tory government doesn't have any manifesto pledge to do so.

[Chippy Minton]

Marmora man - I don't know the detail of the RMT dispute in Scotland you're referring to, but whilst I don't disagree that on the face of it may seem illogical, nevertheless it would be the union's job to try and defend and retain these jobs.

Being a member of a union is not a free service - members pay to belong to a union and so if they are ever in position where their jobs were threatened they would then expect to the union to act wherever possible.

[Marmora Man]

the union's job to try and defend and retain these jobs

This seems to me to be the fundamental problem - it is not "the union's job" to defend and retain redundant positions. A rational union would:

a. Ensure that the redundant workers received everything they are entitled to - including consideration for other relevant vacancies within the company

b. Encourage the company to seek wider business opportunties to further the success of the comapny and thus support the employees

c. Encourage the company to invest appropriately in staff traing & education

d. Encourage employees to give of their best and present the best impression of the company in order to support the company's growth strategy.

An irrational union would:

a. Seek to protect jobs - no matter what the circumstances

b. Create unnecessary and wasteful strikes

c. Oppose all change

The RMT may, possibly, be doing sterling work - but the impression I have of them from Bob Crow interviews and onbservation of other union members and their frequent strikes is far closer to the irrational model.

[Chippy Minton]

Like I said, I am not familiar with the ferry dispute, but I completely agree that if unions are to remain relevant they need to be closer to the "rational model."

All I'm saying is, it's wrong to say Bob Crow hasn't achieved anything when clearly he's achieved a great deal for his members.

I'm not a member of the RMT and I, like thousands/millions of others, am inconvenienced whenever they strike. Perhaps the RMT is a special case because of the density of membership and specialist sector it covers? When they strike in London it affects almost everyone in some way, but when, for example, BA cabin crew went on strike not everyone is affected because a) not everyone is flying then and b) there is a choice of airlines. The RMT seems to be more effective because it doesn't have these sorts of issues however, I don't accept that all RMT strikes are politically motivated.