Meeting of Renfrewshire Full Council Sept. 13 Th. 07 --- The scene is the council chamber, the GNAT/GLIB. DEM. cabal have announced price rises for after school care for paisley's two poorest wards, they have also announced price rises for hall hires, this includes users less fortunate than most of us such as Pensioners and groups with learning difficulties.
Both of the above price hikes could cost jobs with halls closing and people who rely on after school care being unable to afford it--- then another announcement--- a budget cut of £2.3 Million - that could mean jobs as well.
The following exchange then took place, Cllr. Kelly ( for it was I ) to Council leader Mackay SNP " labour gave our workforce a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies, we honoured this guarantee for the 27 Yrs. we were in office, will you Cllr. Mackay give the same guarantee" Cllr. Mackay - no answer - the question was put again on three other occasions, Cllr. Mckay - no answer - he stared into the middle distance like a rabbit in the headlights of a car.
What does it mean ? well to our approx. 9,000 employees it means that the Labour guarantee of no compulsory redundancies which has protected you for 27 yrs. has been ditched by the new Glib/Dem. Gnat alliance, after 27 Yrs. it has taken 4 months for them to sell their work force down the river and this is them just starting - you were warned !
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
Should jobs be guaranteed at any price?
Your simple equation is: Budget cuts = loss of jobs = catastrophe.
Perhaps Council leader Mackay takes a more intellectual, considered approach to the use of public funds?
They had better make sure they are good at what they do now the scandalous "job for life" culture that existed under Labour has been dismantled.
Councillor
Renfrew workers...'27yrs protected employment' plus better pensions and better 'sickies' than in the private sector. I wish I had been so lucky!
Now, let's cut to the chase.What, in real terms, are the actual increases in hall/after school care charges? Do these charges only apply to the '2 poorest areas?' What were the charges when you became a councillor 8yrs ago vs current? What were your allowances as a councillor 8yrs ago vs current? Why the £2.3m budget cut?
I make that five questions, asked with courtesy and in the simple, trusting, innocent belief, that you will answer.
Which just goes to show that the new council serve the people and are putting the people first, not the council workers.
At last we have a council who have their priorities in the right place.
Re your comments about after school care Terry, you omit to mention that those who can least afford it get it paid through their benefits anyway, so any increases have no effect on them.
You tug at our heart strings with a plea about Paisley's 2 poorest wards.
Isn't it a fact that council spending in these areas is far in excess of any other areas in Renfrewshire.
Throwing money at these areas is not the answer.
Remember the recent fiasco where the council offered piles of free computers and wireless broadband to certain of these poorest areas.
I turns out that almost 2/3's of these computers ended up in "cash converters"
My heart tends not to bleed Terry.
Perhaps the money wasted in these kind of initiatives could have helped to keep cost increases down in other areas
A vast amount of money could be saved by making all Labour councillors redundant.
This would also increase council efficiency greatly by negating the need for their huge expenses, office requirements, surgeries and time spent on council meetings where they turn up to oppose every motion regardsless of its merits
Three cheers for the SNP/Lib dems who now appear to be taking Renfrewshire out of the dark age of labour control.
Why do you think the ratepayers of Renfrewshire should have to pay for a council employee in perpetuity, regardless of whether or not the money could be better spent elsewhere?
Patrick
It appears that you think that the primary purpose of Renfrewshire Council is to provide employment by guaranteeing jobs at council tax payers expense regardless of whether these jobs help serve the community. I would have thought that the primary purpose of the Council was to provide services to the people of Renfrewshire not to provide public sector employment regardless of the relevance of the jobs or the competence of the employees. How many lamp-lighters and tram drivers does the Council still employ?
I would appreciate an answer as your comments are quite worrying.
Mortimer - I think a promise of no compulsory redundancies was a bold step by us and we maintained it for 27 yrs. the sky didn't fall in either - I understand that you would disagree with job guarantees, that is a basic political difference, it goes against the unfettered free market.
However if Cllr. Mackay was taking a 'more intellectual and considered approach to public spending' why did he sit silently on his hands ? Asked four times and no answer ? Then after a convenient toilet break he came back and said that in respect of the £2.3 m. There would be no ' redundancies' a short term promise but not one that fits you description of him surely.
RFS - see my reply to rumbold.
Byeck - I'm not sure what you expect here but let me make my position clear for you.
All your questions except one can be answered by doing your own research as they are a matter of public record so, go to it.
The one you will not get an answer to is, as I said before the £2.3m. Because they have refused to tell us, I did tell you that didn't I ?
Shotgun - 'the new council are putting the people first' really ? they have just removed a Labour jobs guarantee for 9,000 workers after 4 months in office a guarantee which stood for 27 yrs.
I'm happy to let people decide who puts the people first.
"Asked four times and no answer"
We can all relate to that, can't we Byeck?!
Anon - disingenuous - the rise effects the poorest areas right or wrong ? It targets them because they don't have a record of protesting, it's underhand and unfair.
Anon - the poorest areas are labour's priority, did you just realise that ?
Tell me about the 2/3's you refer to.
You are a difficult person to like, in fact you are miserable bigot.
Anon - do none of you people have names, what are you afraid of ?
If you consider that removing a jobs guarantee for 9,000 employees which has stood for 27 yrs. Under labour is a good thing then you are doing the right thing by supporting the Nat/Lib. Dem. Cabal because that's what they have done.
Perhaps you should look into the money being distributed to councillors now and see if you can show us where the SNP/Lib. Dems. Are showing the way.
Patrick - job guarantees are a good thing everyone would want one, it is therefore a good thing to do. As for the money being better spent elsewhere, well, do you want to go there or do you just want to confine it to workers jobs.
Why should the rate/tax payers of Renfrewshire pay for royalty in perpetuity when the money could be better spent elsewhere like securing jobs for people who actually work, there are a lot more who qualify for this analysis.
Andrew G - I'll take you at your word - Labour gave a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies to it's workforce at a time when the most reactionary right wing govt. Led by the most reactionary right wing prime minister ever was threatening to decimate local services and local jobs, it was a political decision to protect our people which I am proud of.
If an employee is incompetent he/she is sacked, not made redundant.
We gave that commitment because it was right and because we were confident that a Labour Council could do this, this is not the same as saying we would provide jobs at any price, I accept that it might be possible to have a situation where we had to sack people unlikely as that would be.
Having sacked people and broken the guarantee I would then resign.
Anon - the poorest areas are labour's priority, did you just realise that ?
Tell me about the 2/3's you refer to.
You are a difficult person to like, in fact you are miserable bigot.
LOL! Oh dear, Terry "I don't do insults" Kelly brands someone a 'miserable bigot' for daring to question the Gospel according to Terry.
We already know that you think that right-wing bloggers are paedophilies and that gay SNP bloggers are homophobes. Whatever next? Defectors from the Scottish Liebour party are rapists?!?
You see this is where Labour and I really fall out. I have worked in the city, and have been required to clear my desk no fewer than four times in one two-year period, Twice because of takeovers. Yet I am not in favour of protecting jobs.
Instead of whinging to your union, You dust yourself down and call the recruitment agency and start sending CV's. Norman Tebbit called it "getting on your bike"
This idea that jobs are to be protected is ridiculous - and led directly to the winter of discontent and the 3-day week. If you're surplus to requirements no-one should be forced to pay you, especially tax-payers.
Patrick - job guarantees are a good thing everyone would want one, it is therefore a good thing to do.
Everyone wants a million pounds, so everyone should get it, right?
Come on Terry, surely a contract that one party can end and the other can't isn't very, y'know, equal...
Why should the rate/tax payers of Renfrewshire pay for royalty in perpetuity
Well, it is the system of Government supported by a majority of the people in this country. And I'd gladly pay the 60-odd pence per year the House of Windsor costs me to keep President Blair's face off my fiver, wouldn't you?
Patrick
C4' - what can I say ? You bring out the worst in me you are that kind of person.
Jackart - I disagree, you support the dog eat dog phylosophy and I don't, There is more than enough money, goods and materials around to support the whole planet what prevents it from happening is greed or put another way, Capitalism.
If you really believe that protecting jobs is 'ridiculous' do you extend this to all jobs ? Or even non jobs' like royalty for instance they seem well protected eh ! Is it OK for tax payers to pick up that bill ? are they different ?
Patrick - You seemed to have answered my question for me - you are happy to treat the parasitic royals as different, OK that's your choice.
The labour Council won 6 elections in a row and people could have got rid of us if they didn't agree with us protecting jobs.
I'm happy to let people decide who puts the people first.
So, according to you, the people are actually the council workers? Hmmmm, I thought there were many more than 9000 in Renfrewshire.
Funny ideas there councillor and maybe you should consider just who put you in power and who you serve. The council workers serve the people and not the other way round, just as you serve the people and not exclusively the council workers.
If we listened to you, who claims to be a socialist, we have the stupid and criminal situation where the poorest are subsidising the better off council workers, and you think that is right?
Any guarantee is null and void, just as it would be if you were taking over from an incumbent Tory, SNP or any other council.
Sour grapes eh?
Councillor
"People could have got rid of us (Labour) of they didn't agree with protecting jobs."
Councillor...they just have got rid of you...accept it and move on.
Now, the 5 questions in my earlier post were met with the usual deafening Kelly silence, so I'll add a 6th....WHY?
"The labour Council won 6 elections in a row and people could have got rid of us if they didn't agree with us protecting jobs."
Obviously this time they were so sick to the stomach of Labour that they voted them out, even at the risk of their own jobs.
Kind of shows you the strength of feeling against labour in Renfrewshire
"You are a difficult person to like, in fact you are miserable bigot."
Terry, such a personal insult is uncalled for.
Where am I a bigot?
Is everone, who doesn't agree with your point of view, a bigot.
I think you need some counselling councillor.
Councillor,
"Brown is the natural heir to Margaret Thatcher." Norman Tebbit.
Would you like to comment?
Terry, I believe that is the first valid, cogent and sensible retort I have ever seen you make.
Yes, Royalty is an anachronism, but one I think whose benefits outweigh its disadvantages by some margin. Indeed I believe that the principle victim of the system of monarchy is the Royal family. They do a head of state's job very cheaply - we the proles get good value for money: please don't tell me a presidency would cost less!
I think the Monarch earns her keep, and I think everyone else, and that includes fat lazy unionised public-sector jobsworths, should earn their wages too.
So there's a bit more to job protection than you think. But it ain't just philosophy, it's economics too. Job protection = high unemployment and only someone who's been lobotomised needs the reason explaining to them.
Fair answer, I don't agree with the politics of it but there's some principle there all the same. Cheers.
Shotgun - 'the people are the council workers' no 'the council workers are people' who put me in power ? That'll be the people who put me in power 3 times in a row, this time with ease.
I didn't say the Guarantee wasn't null and void did I ? It's null and void because the SNP choose to make it that.
I take it's OK then for Royal nonentities to have permanent jobs then ? Do you enjoy life as a serf ?
Byeck - pay attention - all those questions except one are in the public domain - go get them - the £2.3 m. One came from the SNP without explanation, go and speak to them..
byeck - rhetorical
anon - bigot ? thank you for your concern.
Everyone who disagrees with me is not a bigot, you can be wrong without being a bigot.
anon - '6 in a row' have you done this before ?
Labour 17 seets, Snp 17 seats, Lib. Dems. 4 seats with labour taking the largest share of the popular vote, and the Lib.Dems. the smallest share.
Result - a Lib. Dem. / SNP coalition - would you like to try this again ?
Royalty represent the very top of the festering corrupt capitalist society that we live in, we don't need a president or a monarch, they make our country a laughing stock.
I believe that protected jobs is a good thing along with full employment it's a political thing, you wouldn't understand.
I take it's OK then for Royal nonentities to have permanent jobs then ? Do you enjoy life as a serf ?
Yes it is because they inherited that title and right, just as the Bliar children will inherit all his money, just as you would have inherited if your father had amounted to anything.
If you have a gripe take it up with your under-achieving forebears and no-one else.
That'll be the people who put me in power 3 times in a row, this time with ease.
But not Labour or Labour policies...so by your own admission you agree you have no reason to gripe?
Unless of course you are now an indy?
Councillor
I'm hurt - on another post, Juliette asks about Brown cosying up to Thatcher and gets the Kelly stamp of approval for "a diamond of a question."
I ask about Brown being the heir to Thatcher and get the Kelly brush-off for being rhetorical.
Sexism, that's what it is, sexism.
Probably ageism too.
"I believe that protected jobs is a good thing along with full employment it's a political thing, you wouldn't understand."
But yes I do, Terry. It is either protection, or full employment. In Europe there is an inverse relationship between job protection and employment. It's an economic thing Terry. YOU don't understand. That's why you're a socialist.
the very top of the festering corrupt capitalist society that we live in
The UK is number 11 in Transperency International's corruption index. There are only 10 nations on Earth cleaner than us, viz. Iceland, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Australia and the Netherlands. All liberal capitalist democracies. Who'd a thunk it!
Patrick
Shotgun - That's a cap doffing, forelock tugging, knee bending, sycophantic yes then eh ?
Do your knees never get sore ?
Shotgun - Labour 17 seats SNP 17 seats Lib. Dems. 4 seats
Labour took the biggest share of the vote, the lib. Dems. The smallest share.
Result - a Lib. Dem. / SNP administration - why would I gripe about that, clearly a triumph in you eyes though.
byeck - I'm beginning to wonder if you are up to this.
Pay attention now, it was a 'diamond of a question' because it was so predictable and easy to deal with, right, have you got that ? or don't you understand ?
Jackart - job protection and jobs for life for those and such as those has always been with us, it's when we try to provide it for real workers people like you start squealing.
You would be lost without someone walking all over you and keeping you in your place wouldn't you.
Patrick - transparency International ? never heard of them but I don't doubt that they exist, however if they are like your other favourites the CIA well -----
Councillor
So, a 'diamond of a question' is one that's "predictable & easy to deal with."
God bless you Sir as an honest, though sexist and ageist, politician.
shotgun - clean up your act you foul mouthed moron.
Shotgun - Another unprintable rant.
What would you do if you couldn't indulge in this kind of behaviour.
My guess is that you would be quickly in prison, judging by the language it would be Peterhead.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is not a bigot, you can be wrong without being a bigot."
But everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?...
"Patrick - transparency International ? never heard of them but I don't doubt that they exist, however if they are like your other favourites the CIA well"
Actually, they're one of the most highly-respected political monitoring organisations in the world. I'm not sure if you're implying they're in league with the CIA. If you are, that is laughable.
Anon - 'But everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?...' Absolutely, if I disagree with you about something then we would both be thinking the other was wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be disagreeing.
Are you finding this too difficult ?
Shotgun - You already know I'm not going to print this filth - I can only shudder at the standards of those responsible for your upbringing.
Patrick - you seem to struggle with the concept that I could possibly disagree with your opinion about Transparency International and the CIA, are you not used to actually arguing with someone ?
Telling me how wonderful these people are is meaningless, I don't believe them, I regard them as corrupt, I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying that they were in league with the CIA, I can't find that anywhere in my post, maybe it's just a wee bit of desperation.
"Anon - 'But everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?...' Absolutely, if I disagree with you about something then we would both be thinking the other was wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be disagreeing.
Are you finding this too difficult ?"
Actually, I wouldn't. I would be thinking, "I believe I'm right, and I'm pretty sure this guy is wrong." For example, I believe that, in the long run, job cuts by our bloated public sector would benefit everyone in society, including the people who lose their jobs now. But I would be prepared to listen to your arguments and recognise that you also had a valid viewpoint. I'm not arrogant, in the way that you clearly are.
I'm not Patrick, I was replying to your post directed to him.
Woah! I thought you'd only just heard of this organisation, and yet you describe them as corrupt? How can you do that? Have you done any research into them at all?
Anonymous - This is awful, what you are really squirming about and trying to cover up is that when you argue with someone you de facto think they are wrong and that's what you asked wasn't it.
You want to rehash the argument about redundancies to hide the fact that you asked a pretty stupid question and got your but kicked.
Anon - my apologies it would be so much easier if you people would just identify yourselves.
Anyway we all have to decide for ourselves who we do and don't trust, there are tens of thousands of organisations out there who all claim to be telling the truth. If you attack what I have said quoting some source which I have never heard of and I mistake you for Patrick the CIA fan then it's not a great surprise that I would lump the two together, is it.
Shotgun - you're dead right I'm not printing this filth but I will say this in answer to your threat, Im in Paisley not Dundee and I dont retract a thing.
No I didn't get my "but" kicked. I was trying to make a point that your comment implied an enormous amount of arrogance on your part, and both of your follow-up responses have emphasised taht.
Anon - "No I didn't get my "but" kicked." Oh yes you did but, I can't really claim much credit you walked into it.
I'll do it again because it's such fun, you asked " do you believe that everyone you argue with is wrong ? " I said words to the effect "yes otherwise I would be agreeing with them, not arguing with them" I'm going to publish you, people are entitled to know the dross I have to deal with.
Post a Comment