Southampton set for massive expansion with new powers under City Deal

Andover Advertiser: City Deal will allow major expansion of Southampton's port. City Deal will allow major expansion of Southampton's port.

A MASSIVE expansion of Southampton port – and the creation of up to 4,000 jobs – moved a big step closer last night under a £1.5 billion deal struck with the Government.

Southampton and south coast rival Portsmouth were offered the chance to join the biggest cities in England in grabbing key powers from Whitehall by signing a joint City Deal.

Powers over tax and spending, welfare-to-work programmes, transport schemes, regeneration projects, business investment and skills training could all be available.

However, there is no direct money, merely greater powers to decide how Government grants are spent, at a time when Southampton City Council has just voted through the worst cuts in its history.

Last night, the city council said the deal – to be signed by July – would push forward:

  • The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs.
  • The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs.
  • The “fast-tracking” of city centre developments, to speed up regeneration and economic development.
  • Investment in the Itchen riverside, to create homes, retail and business opportunities.

City chiefs believe it will also give them stronger negotiating powers with major public sector landowners, helping to unlock key development sites, and greater influence over the running of motorways and trunk roads – and even railways – and over the building of flood defences.

Skills training could also be linked directly to what local businesses need, while council bosses would have greater ability to use their cash reserves, backed by financial guarantees from central Government.

Cllr Richard Williams, Southampton’s Labour leader, told the Daily Echo: “This is the news we have been waiting to hear.

“This represents a genuine opportunity to attract substantial and much-needed investment to our cities and to the region – creating new jobs, new homes and new opportunities.

“Southampton has great potential for substantial and sustainable growth and we can now work towards unlocking that potential.”

Announcing the go-ahead for 20 areas to negotiate with the Government, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said it would set Southampton and Portsmouth “free from the Whitehall leash”.

He added: “Portsmouth and Southampton want to use their City Deal to drive the growth and diversification of the maritime sector in the area and we are ready to hand powers over to help them do this.

“The deal will be a huge boost to the area – supporting growth in the associated subsectors of transport and logistics, defence and advanced manufacturing, the visitor economy and the complex supply chains linked to research and innovation.

“Negotiators should come in aiming high. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unlock local growth.

“Letting go of power and money doesn’t come naturally to Whitehall – over time, the economic importance of other parts of the country has been devastatingly downplayed.”

The deal will give Portsmouth the opportunity to transform its naval base to meet increased demand for servicing ships, drive forward massive investment in the development of Tipner, creating about 1,600 jobs, and help create the new Northern Quarter shopping, housing and leisure development in the city centre, bringing 2,000 new jobs.

Comments (89)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:25am Tue 19 Feb 13

-stiv- says...

Excellent stuff. It's great to see the city moving forward. It feels like it's been left to stagnate for the last ten years or so.

You can see it and feel it around and on the streets.

Can't wait to start seeing the change. I just hope this isn't seen as an opportunity for the powerful few to get richer.
Excellent stuff. It's great to see the city moving forward. It feels like it's been left to stagnate for the last ten years or so. You can see it and feel it around and on the streets. Can't wait to start seeing the change. I just hope this isn't seen as an opportunity for the powerful few to get richer. -stiv-
  • Score: 0

11:31am Tue 19 Feb 13

MoanLess says...

4,000 jobs would be incredible, can't wait!
4,000 jobs would be incredible, can't wait! MoanLess
  • Score: 0

11:36am Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs.
The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs.

Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK.

Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it. southy
  • Score: 0

11:56am Tue 19 Feb 13

ohec says...

Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported. ohec
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

Excellent news with jobs to the City.
.
Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see.
.
Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement
Excellent news with jobs to the City. . Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see. . Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

ohec wrote:
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK. southy
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Excellent news with jobs to the City.
.
Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see.
.
Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement
Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks.
Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it.
The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Excellent news with jobs to the City. . Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see. . Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement[/p][/quote]Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks. Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it. The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land. southy
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Tue 19 Feb 13

eurogordi says...

The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay.

We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win.

Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.
The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council. eurogordi
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Excellent news with jobs to the City.
.
Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see.
.
Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement
Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks.
Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it.
The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.
Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job.
.
The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Excellent news with jobs to the City. . Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see. . Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement[/p][/quote]Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks. Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it. The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.[/p][/quote]Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job. . The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Tue 19 Feb 13

George4th says...

!0,000 jobs?! Pigs just flew past my window!
>
Portsmouth will gain the most benefit because they do not have a Labour council!
>
(Labour is just a wasteful, spend spend spend party with no idea of how to invest for the future. If you had money to invest you would make the investment outside Southampton in Eastleigh, Romsey, Winchester etc.)
!0,000 jobs?! Pigs just flew past my window! > Portsmouth will gain the most benefit because they do not have a Labour council! > (Labour is just a wasteful, spend spend spend party with no idea of how to invest for the future. If you had money to invest you would make the investment outside Southampton in Eastleigh, Romsey, Winchester etc.) George4th
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Excellent news with jobs to the City.
.
Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see.
.
Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement
Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks.
Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it.
The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.
Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job.
.
The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council
Ah right lone my error
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Excellent news with jobs to the City. . Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see. . Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement[/p][/quote]Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks. Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it. The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.[/p][/quote]Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job. . The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council[/p][/quote]Ah right lone my error southy
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Tue 19 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Great news.
Great news. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off. southy
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together.
Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier.
this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there.
the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it.
How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone?
Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton.
Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?
When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Excellent news with jobs to the City.
.
Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see.
.
Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement
Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks.
Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it.
The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.
Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job.
.
The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council
Ah right lone my error
Southy I'll give you one clue who Broke back Coward is talking about?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Excellent news with jobs to the City. . Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see. . Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement[/p][/quote]Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks. Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it. The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.[/p][/quote]Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job. . The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council[/p][/quote]Ah right lone my error[/p][/quote]Southy I'll give you one clue who Broke back Coward is talking about? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together.
Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier.
this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there.
the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it.
How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone?
Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton.
Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?
Loose read what I have posted, even if you reclaim the land infront of Mayflower Park, you still will not be able to build on it, because of the law and the rules and regulations of the park will prevent any building on that reclaim land, in front of Red Funnels they do not want to reclain that, they want to turn it into a private marinia for use to the wealthy and not the locals.
So what can they really do, rebuild the Royal pier and that is it, they will not be able to make it wider or longer than what it use to be.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?[/p][/quote]Loose read what I have posted, even if you reclaim the land infront of Mayflower Park, you still will not be able to build on it, because of the law and the rules and regulations of the park will prevent any building on that reclaim land, in front of Red Funnels they do not want to reclain that, they want to turn it into a private marinia for use to the wealthy and not the locals. So what can they really do, rebuild the Royal pier and that is it, they will not be able to make it wider or longer than what it use to be. southy
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together.
Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier.
this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there.
the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it.
How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone?
Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton.
Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?
Loose read what I have posted, even if you reclaim the land infront of Mayflower Park, you still will not be able to build on it, because of the law and the rules and regulations of the park will prevent any building on that reclaim land, in front of Red Funnels they do not want to reclain that, they want to turn it into a private marinia for use to the wealthy and not the locals.
So what can they really do, rebuild the Royal pier and that is it, they will not be able to make it wider or longer than what it use to be.
Unless this council have changed the plans & therefore will not be allowed to go ahead with it then the only thing ABP would agree to was the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are & the moving of Red funnels out to the end of the reclaimed Land & so that ABP could realise the most from said land Housing was to be built on the infilled area.
ABP said they had an option of taking the reclaimed Dibden infill & using it to expand this side of the Port & with the channel now having to be deeper they'd have even more dredged material to use look at the picture.
The Mayfloer Park as such would be expanded & at the waters edge pontoons(Marina) would be installed which could be used for the enlarged Boat Show.
Southy I remember you kicking off over this once before yet some poster on here reckons it would be a right wing poster who would do that I just wonder who they were talking about?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?[/p][/quote]Loose read what I have posted, even if you reclaim the land infront of Mayflower Park, you still will not be able to build on it, because of the law and the rules and regulations of the park will prevent any building on that reclaim land, in front of Red Funnels they do not want to reclain that, they want to turn it into a private marinia for use to the wealthy and not the locals. So what can they really do, rebuild the Royal pier and that is it, they will not be able to make it wider or longer than what it use to be.[/p][/quote]Unless this council have changed the plans & therefore will not be allowed to go ahead with it then the only thing ABP would agree to was the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are & the moving of Red funnels out to the end of the reclaimed Land & so that ABP could realise the most from said land Housing was to be built on the infilled area. ABP said they had an option of taking the reclaimed Dibden infill & using it to expand this side of the Port & with the channel now having to be deeper they'd have even more dredged material to use look at the picture. The Mayfloer Park as such would be expanded & at the waters edge pontoons(Marina) would be installed which could be used for the enlarged Boat Show. Southy I remember you kicking off over this once before yet some poster on here reckons it would be a right wing poster who would do that I just wonder who they were talking about? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Stillness says...

southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Excellent news with jobs to the City.
.
Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see.
.
Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement
Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks.
Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it.
The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.
Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job.
.
The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council
Ah right lone my error
This I am going to frame.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Excellent news with jobs to the City. . Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see. . Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement[/p][/quote]Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks. Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it. The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.[/p][/quote]Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job. . The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council[/p][/quote]Ah right lone my error[/p][/quote]This I am going to frame. Stillness
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

Given that he was more than a bit cynical about the City Deal back in October, I wonder whether Dr Whitehead can now bring himself to give this announcement his full support.
Given that he was more than a bit cynical about the City Deal back in October, I wonder whether Dr Whitehead can now bring himself to give this announcement his full support. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with. southy
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Excellent news with jobs to the City.
.
Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see.
.
Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement
Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks.
Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it.
The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.
Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job.
.
The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council
Ah right lone my error
Southy I'll give you one clue who Broke back Coward is talking about?
Well its not you is it ......// Big Baby
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Excellent news with jobs to the City. . Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see. . Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement[/p][/quote]Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks. Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it. The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.[/p][/quote]Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job. . The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council[/p][/quote]Ah right lone my error[/p][/quote]Southy I'll give you one clue who Broke back Coward is talking about?[/p][/quote]Well its not you is it ......// Big Baby Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Outside of the Box says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Excellent news with jobs to the City.
.
Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see.
.
Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement
Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks.
Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it.
The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.
Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job.
.
The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council
George4th sort of back you up 100%
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Excellent news with jobs to the City. . Yes it does seem a large number quoted but we will have to wait and see. . Great to see investment in Southampton but i am sure that someone will find something to complain about ....... Mainly because he is losing his arguement[/p][/quote]Just a realist lone, I made points about the docks. Mayflower Park have rules and regulations on what can and what can not be done on it. The Law says, when rights are down to the water line (crown properity) like Mayflower is, any land that is reclaimed infront of it becomes part of that land and will carry the same rights of that land.[/p][/quote]Southy ..... the number of jobs could well be nationwide and to include all aspects of the design, building to the finished job. . The reference to someone finding something to complain about was not directed at you ..... .............. Just a Tory Blue who thinks that no-one would ever invest in Southampton with a Labour Council[/p][/quote]George4th sort of back you up 100% Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Linesman says...

Is this announcement by the Tory-led government timed to influence voters in the Eastleigh by-election?

Previous comments have just been about the effect on Southampton, but Portsmouth is also involved, and who is sandwiched in between?

The borough of Eastleigh.
Is this announcement by the Tory-led government timed to influence voters in the Eastleigh by-election? Previous comments have just been about the effect on Southampton, but Portsmouth is also involved, and who is sandwiched in between? The borough of Eastleigh. Linesman
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

Cllr Williams: “Southampton has great potential for substantial and sustainable growth and we can now work towards unlocking that potential.” It will be interesting to see exactly what growth targets the council has agreed to deliver against in exchange for its new powers. Anything that brings decision making closer to home is to be welcomed, but the council's taken on a mighty big responsibility.
Cllr Williams: “Southampton has great potential for substantial and sustainable growth and we can now work towards unlocking that potential.” It will be interesting to see exactly what growth targets the council has agreed to deliver against in exchange for its new powers. Anything that brings decision making closer to home is to be welcomed, but the council's taken on a mighty big responsibility. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Tue 19 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life! kingnotail
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

George4th wrote:
!0,000 jobs?! Pigs just flew past my window!
>
Portsmouth will gain the most benefit because they do not have a Labour council!
>
(Labour is just a wasteful, spend spend spend party with no idea of how to invest for the future. If you had money to invest you would make the investment outside Southampton in Eastleigh, Romsey, Winchester etc.)
Probably a police helicopter because that bit. like the rest of your post was pure rubbish
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: !0,000 jobs?! Pigs just flew past my window! > Portsmouth will gain the most benefit because they do not have a Labour council! > (Labour is just a wasteful, spend spend spend party with no idea of how to invest for the future. If you had money to invest you would make the investment outside Southampton in Eastleigh, Romsey, Winchester etc.)[/p][/quote]Probably a police helicopter because that bit. like the rest of your post was pure rubbish Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:10pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life!
But then do you know what a park really is.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life![/p][/quote]But then do you know what a park really is. southy
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Tue 19 Feb 13

one in a million says...

4000 jobs for whom? Local people?
4000 jobs for whom? Local people? one in a million
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to loosehead
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Tue 19 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

southy wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life!
But then do you know what a park really is.
How does it even qualify as a park? A park should be an attractive green space, preferably with trees, gardens, good views etc. There is nothing attractive about either the park, its surrounding area or the view across the water. It is a strip of grass in a still largely industrial area, and should be redeveloped into something economically worthwhile.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life![/p][/quote]But then do you know what a park really is.[/p][/quote]How does it even qualify as a park? A park should be an attractive green space, preferably with trees, gardens, good views etc. There is nothing attractive about either the park, its surrounding area or the view across the water. It is a strip of grass in a still largely industrial area, and should be redeveloped into something economically worthwhile. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 19 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

Linesman wrote:
Is this announcement by the Tory-led government timed to influence voters in the Eastleigh by-election?

Previous comments have just been about the effect on Southampton, but Portsmouth is also involved, and who is sandwiched in between?

The borough of Eastleigh.
Regeneration and development of the waterfront areas should be priority number one for Southampton city council. I really can't think of another coastal city that is further behind in this respect.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Is this announcement by the Tory-led government timed to influence voters in the Eastleigh by-election? Previous comments have just been about the effect on Southampton, but Portsmouth is also involved, and who is sandwiched in between? The borough of Eastleigh.[/p][/quote]Regeneration and development of the waterfront areas should be priority number one for Southampton city council. I really can't think of another coastal city that is further behind in this respect. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.
How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.[/p][/quote]How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping southy
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Tue 19 Feb 13

scattymal says...

eurogordi wrote:
The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.
Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay.
I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here.
A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly.
I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts.
Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.[/p][/quote]Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay. I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here. A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly. I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts. Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time scattymal
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life!
But then do you know what a park really is.
How does it even qualify as a park? A park should be an attractive green space, preferably with trees, gardens, good views etc. There is nothing attractive about either the park, its surrounding area or the view across the water. It is a strip of grass in a still largely industrial area, and should be redeveloped into something economically worthwhile.
A park is an open space for public use, how it looks don't come into it.
And what you said is how you would like to see a park.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life![/p][/quote]But then do you know what a park really is.[/p][/quote]How does it even qualify as a park? A park should be an attractive green space, preferably with trees, gardens, good views etc. There is nothing attractive about either the park, its surrounding area or the view across the water. It is a strip of grass in a still largely industrial area, and should be redeveloped into something economically worthwhile.[/p][/quote]A park is an open space for public use, how it looks don't come into it. And what you said is how you would like to see a park. southy
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.
How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?
Because we are all realist in the TUSC
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.[/p][/quote]How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?[/p][/quote]Because we are all realist in the TUSC southy
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.
How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?
Because we are all realist in the TUSC
Being realists, you have already accepted the inevitable outcome on the 28th ?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.[/p][/quote]How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?[/p][/quote]Because we are all realist in the TUSC[/p][/quote]Being realists, you have already accepted the inevitable outcome on the 28th ? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Tue 19 Feb 13

scattymal says...

loosehead wrote:
When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?
Yes! My favourite subject again. Twice in a month. Now we have a chance to get Dibden Container Terminal up and running (note no longer a bay its been filled in). As a Watersider I want it just to get jobs for our kids and others. My lad has been out of work since leaving school 6 years ago. Nothing going on the Waterside at present its all in town. OK so we come under New Forest but that land still belongs to ABP let them build the terminal. We'll hopefully get better roads, ferry service and maybe a train to town too!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?[/p][/quote]Yes! My favourite subject again. Twice in a month. Now we have a chance to get Dibden Container Terminal up and running (note no longer a bay its been filled in). As a Watersider I want it just to get jobs for our kids and others. My lad has been out of work since leaving school 6 years ago. Nothing going on the Waterside at present its all in town. OK so we come under New Forest but that land still belongs to ABP let them build the terminal. We'll hopefully get better roads, ferry service and maybe a train to town too! scattymal
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Look at them again the Casino was never going there it was at Ocean Village where the proposed site was.
Let's get it clear say they did build in front of the park ( waterside) with foot access to the water front isn't that safer for young families?children running off slipping & ending up in the water would be nigh on impossible yet any sailors or people like my wife & I can still get close to the waters & see the cruise ships.
SOUTHY please look into past issues of this paper or get hold of the Tory Mag. Blueprint for the Future you'll see all the planned future developments the Tory council was trying to make happen.
if you still think I'm wrong then sorry I give up! I've tried showing you your making a mistake but it seems you only admit to that if it's a left winger you've made an "error "to
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Look at them again the Casino was never going there it was at Ocean Village where the proposed site was. Let's get it clear say they did build in front of the park ( waterside) with foot access to the water front isn't that safer for young families?children running off slipping & ending up in the water would be nigh on impossible yet any sailors or people like my wife & I can still get close to the waters & see the cruise ships. SOUTHY please look into past issues of this paper or get hold of the Tory Mag. Blueprint for the Future you'll see all the planned future developments the Tory council was trying to make happen. if you still think I'm wrong then sorry I give up! I've tried showing you your making a mistake but it seems you only admit to that if it's a left winger you've made an "error "to loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

scattymal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?
Yes! My favourite subject again. Twice in a month. Now we have a chance to get Dibden Container Terminal up and running (note no longer a bay its been filled in). As a Watersider I want it just to get jobs for our kids and others. My lad has been out of work since leaving school 6 years ago. Nothing going on the Waterside at present its all in town. OK so we come under New Forest but that land still belongs to ABP let them build the terminal. We'll hopefully get better roads, ferry service and maybe a train to town too!
Watch out your local councillor & the Hythe Marina brigade will be baying for your blood!
makes a myth of this argument by them that all watersiders were/are against the container port doesn't it?
With a shrinking Army the Port at Marchwood won't need so many civi workers so even less jobs for the waterside yet we hear this isn't Southampton leave it alone?
I know of many Southampton people who've moved to the Watertside & I feel we are one & all in this together.
What would happen if the council(Southampton) docks & all shops & companies said they'd only employ Southampton Residents or we put toll booths on Redbridge fly over?
they would kick up hell so come on Waterside let's work together for the good of this area
[quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?[/p][/quote]Yes! My favourite subject again. Twice in a month. Now we have a chance to get Dibden Container Terminal up and running (note no longer a bay its been filled in). As a Watersider I want it just to get jobs for our kids and others. My lad has been out of work since leaving school 6 years ago. Nothing going on the Waterside at present its all in town. OK so we come under New Forest but that land still belongs to ABP let them build the terminal. We'll hopefully get better roads, ferry service and maybe a train to town too![/p][/quote]Watch out your local councillor & the Hythe Marina brigade will be baying for your blood! makes a myth of this argument by them that all watersiders were/are against the container port doesn't it? With a shrinking Army the Port at Marchwood won't need so many civi workers so even less jobs for the waterside yet we hear this isn't Southampton leave it alone? I know of many Southampton people who've moved to the Watertside & I feel we are one & all in this together. What would happen if the council(Southampton) docks & all shops & companies said they'd only employ Southampton Residents or we put toll booths on Redbridge fly over? they would kick up hell so come on Waterside let's work together for the good of this area loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

scattymal wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.
Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay.
I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here.
A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly.
I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts.
Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time
San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then.
[quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.[/p][/quote]Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay. I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here. A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly. I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts. Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time[/p][/quote]San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.
How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?
Because we are all realist in the TUSC
"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.[/p][/quote]How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?[/p][/quote]Because we are all realist in the TUSC[/p][/quote]"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism? Stephen J
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Torchie1 wrote:
scattymal wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.
Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay.
I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here.
A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly.
I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts.
Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time
San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then.
They had promised to upgrade the rail track to transport by train all the containers to Southampton by train to either be offloaded on to Lorries or to carry on by train.
they had offered Road improvements but the local Council objected to that.
then you had the objections by Hythe marina residents about the Wild Fowl yet no mention of what happened to the Birds who nested or used the area where the Marina now is. they got the RSPB on their side & as at the Time Labour were about to give permission for London Gateway to try to win votes they didn't want a bigger Southampton Container Port did they?
I guess if ABP went ahead with an application now it wouldn't need to go through all that again & would get granted
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.[/p][/quote]Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay. I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here. A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly. I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts. Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time[/p][/quote]San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then.[/p][/quote]They had promised to upgrade the rail track to transport by train all the containers to Southampton by train to either be offloaded on to Lorries or to carry on by train. they had offered Road improvements but the local Council objected to that. then you had the objections by Hythe marina residents about the Wild Fowl yet no mention of what happened to the Birds who nested or used the area where the Marina now is. they got the RSPB on their side & as at the Time Labour were about to give permission for London Gateway to try to win votes they didn't want a bigger Southampton Container Port did they? I guess if ABP went ahead with an application now it wouldn't need to go through all that again & would get granted loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.
How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?
Because we are all realist in the TUSC
"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism?
Didn't I read somewhere that £120bn wouldn't even touch the sides at the bottom of the hole that is our national debt?
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.[/p][/quote]How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?[/p][/quote]Because we are all realist in the TUSC[/p][/quote]"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism?[/p][/quote]Didn't I read somewhere that £120bn wouldn't even touch the sides at the bottom of the hole that is our national debt? Inform Al
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.
How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?
Because we are all realist in the TUSC
"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism?
Southy & people who think like this are in cloud cuckoo land.
If a big corporation thought a party with this agenda was going to win an election they'd just up sticks & move abroad so less jobs less revenue & more welfare to pay out so we'd be worse off than we now are so Southy Thomas Morrel you won't be getting my vote
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.[/p][/quote]How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?[/p][/quote]Because we are all realist in the TUSC[/p][/quote]"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism?[/p][/quote]Southy & people who think like this are in cloud cuckoo land. If a big corporation thought a party with this agenda was going to win an election they'd just up sticks & move abroad so less jobs less revenue & more welfare to pay out so we'd be worse off than we now are so Southy Thomas Morrel you won't be getting my vote loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.
How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?
Because we are all realist in the TUSC
"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism?
Didn't I read somewhere that £120bn wouldn't even touch the sides at the bottom of the hole that is our national debt?
Hey Southy will one of your Socialist states ( N Korea) chuck us a trillion pounds to pay for socialists c+k ups?
no that's right they can't feed their people but can build atomic bombs party of the people Really?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.[/p][/quote]How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?[/p][/quote]Because we are all realist in the TUSC[/p][/quote]"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism?[/p][/quote]Didn't I read somewhere that £120bn wouldn't even touch the sides at the bottom of the hole that is our national debt?[/p][/quote]Hey Southy will one of your Socialist states ( N Korea) chuck us a trillion pounds to pay for socialists c+k ups? no that's right they can't feed their people but can build atomic bombs party of the people Really? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
scattymal wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.
Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay.
I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here.
A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly.
I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts.
Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time
San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then.
They had promised to upgrade the rail track to transport by train all the containers to Southampton by train to either be offloaded on to Lorries or to carry on by train.
they had offered Road improvements but the local Council objected to that.
then you had the objections by Hythe marina residents about the Wild Fowl yet no mention of what happened to the Birds who nested or used the area where the Marina now is. they got the RSPB on their side & as at the Time Labour were about to give permission for London Gateway to try to win votes they didn't want a bigger Southampton Container Port did they?
I guess if ABP went ahead with an application now it wouldn't need to go through all that again & would get granted
The application (which is available on-line) amounted to modest tinkering at best, with the limited services available on the existing road an rail network. If you look at the situation today with overcrowding and delays then factor in the construction phase and the projected number of containers arriving/departing when completed, the area would have locked up to no-ones benefit. Nice idea but wrong location and now you have the NPA to deal with, who are extremely formidable when it comes to the environment which Tony McNulty originally identified as almost sacrosanct. Perhaps you ought to read the BBC News on-line report today from which this snippet comes :-
"Felixstowe, which handles 42% of the UK's container trade, has 58 train movements a day, but plans to double that after it opens a third rail terminal later this year. "
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.[/p][/quote]Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay. I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here. A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly. I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts. Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time[/p][/quote]San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then.[/p][/quote]They had promised to upgrade the rail track to transport by train all the containers to Southampton by train to either be offloaded on to Lorries or to carry on by train. they had offered Road improvements but the local Council objected to that. then you had the objections by Hythe marina residents about the Wild Fowl yet no mention of what happened to the Birds who nested or used the area where the Marina now is. they got the RSPB on their side & as at the Time Labour were about to give permission for London Gateway to try to win votes they didn't want a bigger Southampton Container Port did they? I guess if ABP went ahead with an application now it wouldn't need to go through all that again & would get granted[/p][/quote]The application (which is available on-line) amounted to modest tinkering at best, with the limited services available on the existing road an rail network. If you look at the situation today with overcrowding and delays then factor in the construction phase and the projected number of containers arriving/departing when completed, the area would have locked up to no-ones benefit. Nice idea but wrong location and now you have the NPA to deal with, who are extremely formidable when it comes to the environment which Tony McNulty originally identified as almost sacrosanct. Perhaps you ought to read the BBC News on-line report today from which this snippet comes :- "Felixstowe, which handles 42% of the UK's container trade, has 58 train movements a day, but plans to double that after it opens a third rail terminal later this year. " Torchie1
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Beer Monster says...

loosehead wrote:
scattymal wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?
Yes! My favourite subject again. Twice in a month. Now we have a chance to get Dibden Container Terminal up and running (note no longer a bay its been filled in). As a Watersider I want it just to get jobs for our kids and others. My lad has been out of work since leaving school 6 years ago. Nothing going on the Waterside at present its all in town. OK so we come under New Forest but that land still belongs to ABP let them build the terminal. We'll hopefully get better roads, ferry service and maybe a train to town too!
Watch out your local councillor & the Hythe Marina brigade will be baying for your blood!
makes a myth of this argument by them that all watersiders were/are against the container port doesn't it?
With a shrinking Army the Port at Marchwood won't need so many civi workers so even less jobs for the waterside yet we hear this isn't Southampton leave it alone?
I know of many Southampton people who've moved to the Watertside & I feel we are one & all in this together.
What would happen if the council(Southampton) docks & all shops & companies said they'd only employ Southampton Residents or we put toll booths on Redbridge fly over?
they would kick up hell so come on Waterside let's work together for the good of this area
Lived in Hythe all my life and couldn't agree more - about time the development got the go ahead for the good of the local economy.

Totally understand where scattymal is coming from too - the only job I've had on the waterside was a short term contract in the oil refinery a couple of years ago. I've had to commute to Salisbury, London and Chichester for jobs in the past and am now working in Edinburgh.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?[/p][/quote]Yes! My favourite subject again. Twice in a month. Now we have a chance to get Dibden Container Terminal up and running (note no longer a bay its been filled in). As a Watersider I want it just to get jobs for our kids and others. My lad has been out of work since leaving school 6 years ago. Nothing going on the Waterside at present its all in town. OK so we come under New Forest but that land still belongs to ABP let them build the terminal. We'll hopefully get better roads, ferry service and maybe a train to town too![/p][/quote]Watch out your local councillor & the Hythe Marina brigade will be baying for your blood! makes a myth of this argument by them that all watersiders were/are against the container port doesn't it? With a shrinking Army the Port at Marchwood won't need so many civi workers so even less jobs for the waterside yet we hear this isn't Southampton leave it alone? I know of many Southampton people who've moved to the Watertside & I feel we are one & all in this together. What would happen if the council(Southampton) docks & all shops & companies said they'd only employ Southampton Residents or we put toll booths on Redbridge fly over? they would kick up hell so come on Waterside let's work together for the good of this area[/p][/quote]Lived in Hythe all my life and couldn't agree more - about time the development got the go ahead for the good of the local economy. Totally understand where scattymal is coming from too - the only job I've had on the waterside was a short term contract in the oil refinery a couple of years ago. I've had to commute to Salisbury, London and Chichester for jobs in the past and am now working in Edinburgh. Beer Monster
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Tue 19 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Tue 19 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
ohec wrote:
Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.
Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.
How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?
Because we are all realist in the TUSC
"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism?
It can be done, just that right wing will not because they are there best friends cant have funds stop going to there party, your that high wage job.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Dumbo southy strikes again, anything that brings growth jobs and prosperity to the area has to be good and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Just being a realist ohec, try thinking about it, how could they create 4,000 jobs in the docks, you can't, to do that you would need to go back in time when every thing was done by hand and when there was ship repairers in the docks, containers cut the manpower by 3/4, and with no ship repairers left in the docks, how are they going to create 4,000 jobs in the docks, they just can't. it might create 4,000 jobs but it will be all over the UK.[/p][/quote]How can one person claim to be a 'realist' and still expect to get elected under the Tusc banner ?[/p][/quote]Because we are all realist in the TUSC[/p][/quote]"We'll get £120bn of tax back off the big corporations to fund our No Cuts agenda." You mean that kind of realism?[/p][/quote]It can be done, just that right wing will not because they are there best friends cant have funds stop going to there party, your that high wage job. southy
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Tue 19 Feb 13

George4th says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Why would Labour spoil their carefully crafted track record and get something right?!
The Unions would be apoplectic!
The Labour councillors would need counseling!
The Labour supporters would be celebrating for 20 years knowing it would never happened again!
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Why would Labour spoil their carefully crafted track record and get something right?! The Unions would be apoplectic! The Labour councillors would need counseling! The Labour supporters would be celebrating for 20 years knowing it would never happened again! George4th
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
You start altering laws that protect mayflower park, and the next step would all beaches tidal areas close off to the public
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]You start altering laws that protect mayflower park, and the next step would all beaches tidal areas close off to the public southy
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Linesman says...

kingnotail wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Is this announcement by the Tory-led government timed to influence voters in the Eastleigh by-election?

Previous comments have just been about the effect on Southampton, but Portsmouth is also involved, and who is sandwiched in between?

The borough of Eastleigh.
Regeneration and development of the waterfront areas should be priority number one for Southampton city council. I really can't think of another coastal city that is further behind in this respect.
I don't disagree with that, I just wondered whether the timing of the announcement was to influence voters in the Eastleigh election.

As I have pointed out, this involves both Southampton and Portsmouth, and with Eastleigh in between, there has to be something in it for them.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Is this announcement by the Tory-led government timed to influence voters in the Eastleigh by-election? Previous comments have just been about the effect on Southampton, but Portsmouth is also involved, and who is sandwiched in between? The borough of Eastleigh.[/p][/quote]Regeneration and development of the waterfront areas should be priority number one for Southampton city council. I really can't think of another coastal city that is further behind in this respect.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with that, I just wondered whether the timing of the announcement was to influence voters in the Eastleigh election. As I have pointed out, this involves both Southampton and Portsmouth, and with Eastleigh in between, there has to be something in it for them. Linesman
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Tue 19 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

southy wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
You start altering laws that protect mayflower park, and the next step would all beaches tidal areas close off to the public
There are no beaches/accessible tidal areas in Southampton, save for Weston shore - which would benefit massively from redevelopment too.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]You start altering laws that protect mayflower park, and the next step would all beaches tidal areas close off to the public[/p][/quote]There are no beaches/accessible tidal areas in Southampton, save for Weston shore - which would benefit massively from redevelopment too. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

6:04pm Tue 19 Feb 13

100%HANTSBOY says...

kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life!
You obviously have never been to Fratton Park then!
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Only in Southampton would people be attached to something that amounts to little more than a car park and a bit of grass. It's the worst excuse for a 'park' I have ever been to in my life![/p][/quote]You obviously have never been to Fratton Park then! 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Outside of the Box says...

George4th wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Why would Labour spoil their carefully crafted track record and get something right?!
The Unions would be apoplectic!
The Labour councillors would need counseling!
The Labour supporters would be celebrating for 20 years knowing it would never happened again!
Oh so positive, hopefully this will be delivered by the council, personally I couldn't care less what side of the political delivers regeneration to this area, it's been a eyesore for years and needs sorting.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Why would Labour spoil their carefully crafted track record and get something right?! The Unions would be apoplectic! The Labour councillors would need counseling! The Labour supporters would be celebrating for 20 years knowing it would never happened again![/p][/quote]Oh so positive, hopefully this will be delivered by the council, personally I couldn't care less what side of the political delivers regeneration to this area, it's been a eyesore for years and needs sorting. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Tue 19 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

George4th wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Why would Labour spoil their carefully crafted track record and get something right?!
The Unions would be apoplectic!
The Labour councillors would need counseling!
The Labour supporters would be celebrating for 20 years knowing it would never happened again!
Accident do happen, given a chance.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Why would Labour spoil their carefully crafted track record and get something right?! The Unions would be apoplectic! The Labour councillors would need counseling! The Labour supporters would be celebrating for 20 years knowing it would never happened again![/p][/quote]Accident do happen, given a chance. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Tue 19 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

southy wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
You start altering laws that protect mayflower park, and the next step would all beaches tidal areas close off to the public
It doesn't naturally follow and is just scaremongering with no cause. All laws were/are made for a reason, but over time the reason changes, we have to move with the times and not keep burying our heads in the sand. However any change has to be made with the general agreement of the majority who it affects.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]You start altering laws that protect mayflower park, and the next step would all beaches tidal areas close off to the public[/p][/quote]It doesn't naturally follow and is just scaremongering with no cause. All laws were/are made for a reason, but over time the reason changes, we have to move with the times and not keep burying our heads in the sand. However any change has to be made with the general agreement of the majority who it affects. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Tue 19 Feb 13

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together.
Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier.
this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there.
the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it.
How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone?
Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton.
Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?
Loose read what I have posted, even if you reclaim the land infront of Mayflower Park, you still will not be able to build on it, because of the law and the rules and regulations of the park will prevent any building on that reclaim land, in front of Red Funnels they do not want to reclain that, they want to turn it into a private marinia for use to the wealthy and not the locals.
So what can they really do, rebuild the Royal pier and that is it, they will not be able to make it wider or longer than what it use to be.
Southy, please explain exactly what are the 'laws and regulations of Mayflower Park' because I belive you are misguided
The Mayflower Park area was originally acquired by the Borough of Soton (now the City Council) when Millbrook Bay was filled in by the Southern Railway Company between WW1 & 2.
It is a recognised POS (Public Open Space) so it would be difficult, but not impossible to build on it.
All POS areas in Soton come under the Hampshire Act of 1983 which means they have to be available for public access for a certain amount of days each year (there was an amendment a few years ago specifically relating to Mayflower Park to allow for two weekends use of the park by the Boat Show)
However under plans for the Royal Pier development the Mayflower Park footprint will increase from 4.2 hectares to 5.4 hectares which sounds pretty good to me.
Also the City Council has agreed a 150 lease of the extended Mayflower Park foreshore and seabed from the Crown Estate (who own the freehold)presumaby to allow development of the waterside of the park.
Of course Red Funnel are not immediately adjacent to Mayflower Park (they are situated on the opposite side of the old Royal Pier on land owned, I believe, by the port so your comment on Red Funnel is irrelevant
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?[/p][/quote]Loose read what I have posted, even if you reclaim the land infront of Mayflower Park, you still will not be able to build on it, because of the law and the rules and regulations of the park will prevent any building on that reclaim land, in front of Red Funnels they do not want to reclain that, they want to turn it into a private marinia for use to the wealthy and not the locals. So what can they really do, rebuild the Royal pier and that is it, they will not be able to make it wider or longer than what it use to be.[/p][/quote]Southy, please explain exactly what are the 'laws and regulations of Mayflower Park' because I belive you are misguided The Mayflower Park area was originally acquired by the Borough of Soton (now the City Council) when Millbrook Bay was filled in by the Southern Railway Company between WW1 & 2. It is a recognised POS (Public Open Space) so it would be difficult, but not impossible to build on it. All POS areas in Soton come under the Hampshire Act of 1983 which means they have to be available for public access for a certain amount of days each year (there was an amendment a few years ago specifically relating to Mayflower Park to allow for two weekends use of the park by the Boat Show) However under plans for the Royal Pier development the Mayflower Park footprint will increase from 4.2 hectares to 5.4 hectares which sounds pretty good to me. Also the City Council has agreed a 150 lease of the extended Mayflower Park foreshore and seabed from the Crown Estate (who own the freehold)presumaby to allow development of the waterside of the park. Of course Red Funnel are not immediately adjacent to Mayflower Park (they are situated on the opposite side of the old Royal Pier on land owned, I believe, by the port so your comment on Red Funnel is irrelevant phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Tue 19 Feb 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government.

This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.
When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government. This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about?
the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control.
I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through.
I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots?
please explain what you mean please?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please? loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government.

This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.
Well said Foys ..... Most will agree on this site 100%
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government. This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.[/p][/quote]Well said Foys ..... Most will agree on this site 100% Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Tue 19 Feb 13

phil maccavity says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Andy,
Having taken issue with Southy on Mayflower Park, I find myself agreeing with his scepticism on potential job numbers.
They do not add up at all.
I just wonder where all these figures came from?
The Govt Cities Minister, Greg Clark, promoted this Nick Clegg (I think inspired) initiative starting with 8 major cities and these have now been joined by another 20.
Interestingly Southampton and Portsmouth seem to be the only joint bid and have been ranked alongside relative minnows (in population terms), such as Cambridge and Milton Keynes.
So the 28 city regions have 71% of the population and 68% of the country's jobs.
All I can see benefitting the cities is the ability to use the local business rate revenue rather than send it up to London for distribution, participation in the Regional Growth Fund (which historically has benefitted northern cities more than those south of the M4 corridor)and some cash from Enterprise Zones (which again has generally been distributed north of the M4)
It will be interesting to see how the politicians in Southampton and Portsmouth are able deal with the shared responsibility.
For example if a pot of say £10m is available to enhance port facilities will each city engage in friendly discussions on the allocation of funds or try to outmanoeuvre the other to get the lions share?
Every city involved in this initiative is putting a positive spin on the benefits.
I wonder how many will be winners and how many losers?
I hope Southampton is a winner but only time will tell as more detail emerges
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Andy, Having taken issue with Southy on Mayflower Park, I find myself agreeing with his scepticism on potential job numbers. They do not add up at all. I just wonder where all these figures came from? The Govt Cities Minister, Greg Clark, promoted this Nick Clegg (I think inspired) initiative starting with 8 major cities and these have now been joined by another 20. Interestingly Southampton and Portsmouth seem to be the only joint bid and have been ranked alongside relative minnows (in population terms), such as Cambridge and Milton Keynes. So the 28 city regions have 71% of the population and 68% of the country's jobs. All I can see benefitting the cities is the ability to use the local business rate revenue rather than send it up to London for distribution, participation in the Regional Growth Fund (which historically has benefitted northern cities more than those south of the M4 corridor)and some cash from Enterprise Zones (which again has generally been distributed north of the M4) It will be interesting to see how the politicians in Southampton and Portsmouth are able deal with the shared responsibility. For example if a pot of say £10m is available to enhance port facilities will each city engage in friendly discussions on the allocation of funds or try to outmanoeuvre the other to get the lions share? Every city involved in this initiative is putting a positive spin on the benefits. I wonder how many will be winners and how many losers? I hope Southampton is a winner but only time will tell as more detail emerges phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Tue 19 Feb 13

loosehead says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government.

This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.
Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade?
I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area.
What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it?
the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ?
I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government. This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.[/p][/quote]Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade? I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area. What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it? the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ? I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Tue 19 Feb 13

scattymal says...

Torchie1 wrote:
scattymal wrote:
eurogordi wrote: The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.
Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay. I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here. A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly. I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts. Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time
San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then.
Again I've said it before a friend of mine who is an enviromentalist and was working as a liason between HCC and ABP told me after it was all kicked into touch that there isn't anything special on Dibden Bay that would not naturally relocate to Calshot, Lepe or the end of Beaulieu river. I also know that ABP had asked a large shipping company (who I happened to be working for at the time) to go in with tem in the development. It would have been built environentally friendly. I only hope that not only our councillors on the Waterside but also our MP see sense and go along with Dibden Bay if it comes about. Our kids and their kids need jobs on the Waterside.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.[/p][/quote]Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay. I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here. A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly. I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts. Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time[/p][/quote]San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then.[/p][/quote]Again I've said it before a friend of mine who is an enviromentalist and was working as a liason between HCC and ABP told me after it was all kicked into touch that there isn't anything special on Dibden Bay that would not naturally relocate to Calshot, Lepe or the end of Beaulieu river. I also know that ABP had asked a large shipping company (who I happened to be working for at the time) to go in with tem in the development. It would have been built environentally friendly. I only hope that not only our councillors on the Waterside but also our MP see sense and go along with Dibden Bay if it comes about. Our kids and their kids need jobs on the Waterside. scattymal
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Tue 19 Feb 13

scattymal says...

Torchie1 wrote:
scattymal wrote:
eurogordi wrote: The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.
Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay. I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here. A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly. I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts. Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time
San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then.
Again I've said it before a friend of mine who is an enviromentalist and was working as a liason between HCC and ABP told me after it was all kicked into touch that there isn't anything special on Dibden Bay that would not naturally relocate to Calshot, Lepe or the end of Beaulieu river. I also know that ABP had asked a large shipping company (who I happened to be working for at the time) to go in with them in the development. It would have been built environentally friendly. I only hope that not only our councillors on the Waterside but also our MP see sense and go along with Dibden Bay if it comes about. Our kids and their kids need jobs on the Waterside.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton Port would suggest that ABP and Southampton City Council will once again be looking across the water to Dibden Bay. We fought it before and won. We will fight it again and we will win. Keep your hands off land that is controlled by New Forest District Council and has nothing to do with Southampton City Council.[/p][/quote]Well I'm not so sure you will win. It was only a handful of people really on the Waterside that opposed Dibden Bay. I'm a Waterside resident and want to see Dibden Bay go ahead to get jobs for our kids and other out here. A port can be built that's green. Just research the port in Los Angeles Pier 52 I think it's called that was built by Maersk Line. It's very environmentally friendly. I've said before the only reason Dibden Bay was stopped was because they decided to develop Teesports. Ohh and whos constituencies happen to be nearby only Blairs and Prescotts. Here's hoping Dibden Bay will get the go ahead this time[/p][/quote]San Pedro where the LA port is doesn't rely on an overstretched single track railway or a full-to-bursting A326 to service it's Piers though, does it? ABP didn't seem to have any plans to address those problems and at the time the Transport Minister said “One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.” Environmental criteria have only grown stronger since then.[/p][/quote]Again I've said it before a friend of mine who is an enviromentalist and was working as a liason between HCC and ABP told me after it was all kicked into touch that there isn't anything special on Dibden Bay that would not naturally relocate to Calshot, Lepe or the end of Beaulieu river. I also know that ABP had asked a large shipping company (who I happened to be working for at the time) to go in with them in the development. It would have been built environentally friendly. I only hope that not only our councillors on the Waterside but also our MP see sense and go along with Dibden Bay if it comes about. Our kids and their kids need jobs on the Waterside. scattymal
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Tue 19 Feb 13

scattymal says...

Beer Monster wrote:
loosehead wrote:
scattymal wrote:
loosehead wrote: When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?
Yes! My favourite subject again. Twice in a month. Now we have a chance to get Dibden Container Terminal up and running (note no longer a bay its been filled in). As a Watersider I want it just to get jobs for our kids and others. My lad has been out of work since leaving school 6 years ago. Nothing going on the Waterside at present its all in town. OK so we come under New Forest but that land still belongs to ABP let them build the terminal. We'll hopefully get better roads, ferry service and maybe a train to town too!
Watch out your local councillor & the Hythe Marina brigade will be baying for your blood! makes a myth of this argument by them that all watersiders were/are against the container port doesn't it? With a shrinking Army the Port at Marchwood won't need so many civi workers so even less jobs for the waterside yet we hear this isn't Southampton leave it alone? I know of many Southampton people who've moved to the Watertside & I feel we are one & all in this together. What would happen if the council(Southampton) docks & all shops & companies said they'd only employ Southampton Residents or we put toll booths on Redbridge fly over? they would kick up hell so come on Waterside let's work together for the good of this area
Lived in Hythe all my life and couldn't agree more - about time the development got the go ahead for the good of the local economy. Totally understand where scattymal is coming from too - the only job I've had on the waterside was a short term contract in the oil refinery a couple of years ago. I've had to commute to Salisbury, London and Chichester for jobs in the past and am now working in Edinburgh.
The main problem is getting the councillors and our MP to see sense. We need Dibden Bay to get the waterside up and running again. As already said the Army base won't last much longer and the power station goes this year. We're left with the refinery that only take a few apprentices a year, ohh and an incinerator. I believe the infrastructure would be improved for the good of everyone on the Waterside. Ohh and I've had to work away from my family all my working life too. I'm in Spain right now.
[quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scattymal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: When the Echo first reported this I CONGRATULATED the councils of Southampton & Portsmouth on working together. Now the work on the Royal Pier would mean the reclamation of the land where Red Funnels are now & moving out towards the end of the demolished Pier. this will mean construction jobs new housing will go there. the Mayflower Park would be increased in size & a walkway would be built this will give more space so meaning the Boat Show could get bigger the original plans for this were printed as blueprints in this paper by the then Tory council so well done Labour for proceeding with it. How can anyone say leave the New Forest alone? Dibden Bay is no longer there it was Reclaimed by Southampton Docks so you could say it is actually Southampton. Don't the people of the Waterside want jobs?[/p][/quote]Yes! My favourite subject again. Twice in a month. Now we have a chance to get Dibden Container Terminal up and running (note no longer a bay its been filled in). As a Watersider I want it just to get jobs for our kids and others. My lad has been out of work since leaving school 6 years ago. Nothing going on the Waterside at present its all in town. OK so we come under New Forest but that land still belongs to ABP let them build the terminal. We'll hopefully get better roads, ferry service and maybe a train to town too![/p][/quote]Watch out your local councillor & the Hythe Marina brigade will be baying for your blood! makes a myth of this argument by them that all watersiders were/are against the container port doesn't it? With a shrinking Army the Port at Marchwood won't need so many civi workers so even less jobs for the waterside yet we hear this isn't Southampton leave it alone? I know of many Southampton people who've moved to the Watertside & I feel we are one & all in this together. What would happen if the council(Southampton) docks & all shops & companies said they'd only employ Southampton Residents or we put toll booths on Redbridge fly over? they would kick up hell so come on Waterside let's work together for the good of this area[/p][/quote]Lived in Hythe all my life and couldn't agree more - about time the development got the go ahead for the good of the local economy. Totally understand where scattymal is coming from too - the only job I've had on the waterside was a short term contract in the oil refinery a couple of years ago. I've had to commute to Salisbury, London and Chichester for jobs in the past and am now working in Edinburgh.[/p][/quote]The main problem is getting the councillors and our MP to see sense. We need Dibden Bay to get the waterside up and running again. As already said the Army base won't last much longer and the power station goes this year. We're left with the refinery that only take a few apprentices a year, ohh and an incinerator. I believe the infrastructure would be improved for the good of everyone on the Waterside. Ohh and I've had to work away from my family all my working life too. I'm in Spain right now. scattymal
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Tue 19 Feb 13

thinklikealocal says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Andy, Having taken issue with Southy on Mayflower Park, I find myself agreeing with his scepticism on potential job numbers. They do not add up at all. I just wonder where all these figures came from? The Govt Cities Minister, Greg Clark, promoted this Nick Clegg (I think inspired) initiative starting with 8 major cities and these have now been joined by another 20. Interestingly Southampton and Portsmouth seem to be the only joint bid and have been ranked alongside relative minnows (in population terms), such as Cambridge and Milton Keynes. So the 28 city regions have 71% of the population and 68% of the country's jobs. All I can see benefitting the cities is the ability to use the local business rate revenue rather than send it up to London for distribution, participation in the Regional Growth Fund (which historically has benefitted northern cities more than those south of the M4 corridor)and some cash from Enterprise Zones (which again has generally been distributed north of the M4) It will be interesting to see how the politicians in Southampton and Portsmouth are able deal with the shared responsibility. For example if a pot of say £10m is available to enhance port facilities will each city engage in friendly discussions on the allocation of funds or try to outmanoeuvre the other to get the lions share? Every city involved in this initiative is putting a positive spin on the benefits. I wonder how many will be winners and how many losers? I hope Southampton is a winner but only time will tell as more detail emerges
Just maybe, the reason a joint bid from Soton and Pompey was successful is, that with bad jobs news coming out of Soton recently (Fords) and bad jobs news coming out of Pompey soon (shipbuilders), the Govt was disposed to look kindly on a joint bid? Whoops, forgot, decision bout Pompey hasn't been made yet - right.....
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Andy, Having taken issue with Southy on Mayflower Park, I find myself agreeing with his scepticism on potential job numbers. They do not add up at all. I just wonder where all these figures came from? The Govt Cities Minister, Greg Clark, promoted this Nick Clegg (I think inspired) initiative starting with 8 major cities and these have now been joined by another 20. Interestingly Southampton and Portsmouth seem to be the only joint bid and have been ranked alongside relative minnows (in population terms), such as Cambridge and Milton Keynes. So the 28 city regions have 71% of the population and 68% of the country's jobs. All I can see benefitting the cities is the ability to use the local business rate revenue rather than send it up to London for distribution, participation in the Regional Growth Fund (which historically has benefitted northern cities more than those south of the M4 corridor)and some cash from Enterprise Zones (which again has generally been distributed north of the M4) It will be interesting to see how the politicians in Southampton and Portsmouth are able deal with the shared responsibility. For example if a pot of say £10m is available to enhance port facilities will each city engage in friendly discussions on the allocation of funds or try to outmanoeuvre the other to get the lions share? Every city involved in this initiative is putting a positive spin on the benefits. I wonder how many will be winners and how many losers? I hope Southampton is a winner but only time will tell as more detail emerges[/p][/quote]Just maybe, the reason a joint bid from Soton and Pompey was successful is, that with bad jobs news coming out of Soton recently (Fords) and bad jobs news coming out of Pompey soon (shipbuilders), the Govt was disposed to look kindly on a joint bid? Whoops, forgot, decision bout Pompey hasn't been made yet - right..... thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Tue 19 Feb 13

thinklikealocal says...

If another proposal is put forward for Dibden Bay, I think all the Waterside residents would do well to consider, will the refinery still be there in 20 years time? The place is falling apart with precious little investment. Why?
If another proposal is put forward for Dibden Bay, I think all the Waterside residents would do well to consider, will the refinery still be there in 20 years time? The place is falling apart with precious little investment. Why? thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Tue 19 Feb 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government.

This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.
Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade?
I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area.
What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it?
the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ?
I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't
This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May.

It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale.

It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons.

I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government. This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.[/p][/quote]Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade? I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area. What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it? the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ? I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't[/p][/quote]This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May. It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale. It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons. I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

11:15pm Tue 19 Feb 13

George4th says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government.

This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.
Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade?
I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area.
What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it?
the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ?
I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't
This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May.

It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale.

It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons.

I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply.
Southampton will never ever get ahead of the game while it is controlled by the Unions and the sad bad incompetent Labour governance!
Look around you - Why is Southampton the only Labour Council in the South? Why has Southampton been soooooooooo slow with regeneration? (All that time Labour were in power in Southampton and what did they do????!!!)
>
It all boils down to the Union/Labour history of continuous disruption to business and the accumulated reputation of an uncaring workforce, often workshy! All the businesses of any note left Southampton!
>
What's left? A moaning, whinging, the world owes me a living mentality amongst too many Southampton citizens!
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government. This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.[/p][/quote]Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade? I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area. What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it? the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ? I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't[/p][/quote]This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May. It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale. It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons. I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply.[/p][/quote]Southampton will never ever get ahead of the game while it is controlled by the Unions and the sad bad incompetent Labour governance! Look around you - Why is Southampton the only Labour Council in the South? Why has Southampton been soooooooooo slow with regeneration? (All that time Labour were in power in Southampton and what did they do????!!!) > It all boils down to the Union/Labour history of continuous disruption to business and the accumulated reputation of an uncaring workforce, often workshy! All the businesses of any note left Southampton! > What's left? A moaning, whinging, the world owes me a living mentality amongst too many Southampton citizens! George4th
  • Score: 0

12:30am Wed 20 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

George4th wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government.

This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.
Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade?
I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area.
What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it?
the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ?
I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't
This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May.

It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale.

It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons.

I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply.
Southampton will never ever get ahead of the game while it is controlled by the Unions and the sad bad incompetent Labour governance!
Look around you - Why is Southampton the only Labour Council in the South? Why has Southampton been soooooooooo slow with regeneration? (All that time Labour were in power in Southampton and what did they do????!!!)
>
It all boils down to the Union/Labour history of continuous disruption to business and the accumulated reputation of an uncaring workforce, often workshy! All the businesses of any note left Southampton!
>
What's left? A moaning, whinging, the world owes me a living mentality amongst too many Southampton citizens!
Actually Labour have onlt been in power in Southampton for a few months, before that it was your useless party ruining the show.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government. This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.[/p][/quote]Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade? I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area. What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it? the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ? I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't[/p][/quote]This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May. It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale. It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons. I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply.[/p][/quote]Southampton will never ever get ahead of the game while it is controlled by the Unions and the sad bad incompetent Labour governance! Look around you - Why is Southampton the only Labour Council in the South? Why has Southampton been soooooooooo slow with regeneration? (All that time Labour were in power in Southampton and what did they do????!!!) > It all boils down to the Union/Labour history of continuous disruption to business and the accumulated reputation of an uncaring workforce, often workshy! All the businesses of any note left Southampton! > What's left? A moaning, whinging, the world owes me a living mentality amongst too many Southampton citizens![/p][/quote]Actually Labour have onlt been in power in Southampton for a few months, before that it was your useless party ruining the show. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

12:39am Wed 20 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

I hjave reads so much rubbish on this subject by cretins who are more interested in supporting the stance of their political parties, than the interests of those people affacted by what is going on. WAKE UP morons, political parties are not what we should be interested in, it's the people that count.
I hjave reads so much rubbish on this subject by cretins who are more interested in supporting the stance of their political parties, than the interests of those people affacted by what is going on. WAKE UP morons, political parties are not what we should be interested in, it's the people that count. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

7:21am Wed 20 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
George4th wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government.

This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.
Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade?
I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area.
What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it?
the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ?
I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't
This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May.

It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale.

It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons.

I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply.
Southampton will never ever get ahead of the game while it is controlled by the Unions and the sad bad incompetent Labour governance!
Look around you - Why is Southampton the only Labour Council in the South? Why has Southampton been soooooooooo slow with regeneration? (All that time Labour were in power in Southampton and what did they do????!!!)
>
It all boils down to the Union/Labour history of continuous disruption to business and the accumulated reputation of an uncaring workforce, often workshy! All the businesses of any note left Southampton!
>
What's left? A moaning, whinging, the world owes me a living mentality amongst too many Southampton citizens!
Actually Labour have onlt been in power in Southampton for a few months, before that it was your useless party ruining the show.
Al the Tories were in power for 4 years the Lib/Lab coalition before that then we had Labour in power or did you forget the forward thinking June Bridles Labour council?
In 4 years the Tory admin came up with the Cultural quarter, re vamp of train station ,modernisation of the area around station, New Fruit & Veg market ( wonder if Labour will go ahead with that?). Snow dome which Labour scrapped & then we have the Mayflower park,Town Quay development which after many proposals ABP agreed to go ahead with one of them & this is that proposal.
So why make out this Labour Council are bringing all these things to the City & the last council did nothing?
Even the new road lay out at Dock Gate 4 was a Tory plan so looks like they did quite a lot for this city just a pity Unions decided to go on a political dispute to rid us of the most forward thinking council we've had in at least 15 years!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government. This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.[/p][/quote]Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade? I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area. What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it? the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ? I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't[/p][/quote]This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May. It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale. It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons. I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply.[/p][/quote]Southampton will never ever get ahead of the game while it is controlled by the Unions and the sad bad incompetent Labour governance! Look around you - Why is Southampton the only Labour Council in the South? Why has Southampton been soooooooooo slow with regeneration? (All that time Labour were in power in Southampton and what did they do????!!!) > It all boils down to the Union/Labour history of continuous disruption to business and the accumulated reputation of an uncaring workforce, often workshy! All the businesses of any note left Southampton! > What's left? A moaning, whinging, the world owes me a living mentality amongst too many Southampton citizens![/p][/quote]Actually Labour have onlt been in power in Southampton for a few months, before that it was your useless party ruining the show.[/p][/quote]Al the Tories were in power for 4 years the Lib/Lab coalition before that then we had Labour in power or did you forget the forward thinking June Bridles Labour council? In 4 years the Tory admin came up with the Cultural quarter, re vamp of train station ,modernisation of the area around station, New Fruit & Veg market ( wonder if Labour will go ahead with that?). Snow dome which Labour scrapped & then we have the Mayflower park,Town Quay development which after many proposals ABP agreed to go ahead with one of them & this is that proposal. So why make out this Labour Council are bringing all these things to the City & the last council did nothing? Even the new road lay out at Dock Gate 4 was a Tory plan so looks like they did quite a lot for this city just a pity Unions decided to go on a political dispute to rid us of the most forward thinking council we've had in at least 15 years! loosehead
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
George4th wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government.

This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.
Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade?
I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area.
What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it?
the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ?
I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't
This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May.

It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale.

It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons.

I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply.
Southampton will never ever get ahead of the game while it is controlled by the Unions and the sad bad incompetent Labour governance!
Look around you - Why is Southampton the only Labour Council in the South? Why has Southampton been soooooooooo slow with regeneration? (All that time Labour were in power in Southampton and what did they do????!!!)
>
It all boils down to the Union/Labour history of continuous disruption to business and the accumulated reputation of an uncaring workforce, often workshy! All the businesses of any note left Southampton!
>
What's left? A moaning, whinging, the world owes me a living mentality amongst too many Southampton citizens!
Actually Labour have onlt been in power in Southampton for a few months, before that it was your useless party ruining the show.
Al the Tories were in power for 4 years the Lib/Lab coalition before that then we had Labour in power or did you forget the forward thinking June Bridles Labour council?
In 4 years the Tory admin came up with the Cultural quarter, re vamp of train station ,modernisation of the area around station, New Fruit & Veg market ( wonder if Labour will go ahead with that?). Snow dome which Labour scrapped & then we have the Mayflower park,Town Quay development which after many proposals ABP agreed to go ahead with one of them & this is that proposal.
So why make out this Labour Council are bringing all these things to the City & the last council did nothing?
Even the new road lay out at Dock Gate 4 was a Tory plan so looks like they did quite a lot for this city just a pity Unions decided to go on a political dispute to rid us of the most forward thinking council we've had in at least 15 years!
And they sold off all the social infrastructure in Swaythling whilst at the same time Royston made sure his area was given a new community centre, despite Swaythling at that time having two Tory councillors. That will never happen again.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: When taking everything into consideration you have to take your hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams of Southampton (Labour) and his opposite number, Gerald Vernon Jackson from Portsmouth (Liberal Democrat) in landing this deal with central government. This inter-city collaboration in the Solent region is precisely the way forward for our local economy and is in stark contrast to the isolationist and anti public service approach adopted by the City's former conservative rulers.[/p][/quote]Why turn this into an Anti Tory tirade? I'm a Tory & I was saying let's get this area ( Hampshire & the Isle Of wight) working together to bring jobs to the area. What you've said about the last Tory council isn't true though is it? the merger of services at the managerial level with the Isle Of Wight council was two councils working together & would have saved millions but Williams scrapped that deal so the question is why ? I will & have congratulated both councils on working together for the good of both cities but don't paint Williams as a saving Angel because he ain't[/p][/quote]This is no anti-Tory tirade but a criticism of the particular brand of muscular conservatism that the long-suffering citizens of Southampton were forced to endure until last May. It makes on sense at all to run down Council services for purely ideological reasons and then merge functions with the Isle of Wight without any clear service rationale. It makes far more sense for Southampton and Portsmouth Councils to share services such as happens at present with the Directors of Public Health and Adult Social Care; this would never have happened under the Conservatives in power as their leader refused to work with Portsmouth I assume for petty party political reasons. I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable and rational Conservatives out there but sadly - judging by what's currently on offer in Eastleigh and Southampton - they are in short supply.[/p][/quote]Southampton will never ever get ahead of the game while it is controlled by the Unions and the sad bad incompetent Labour governance! Look around you - Why is Southampton the only Labour Council in the South? Why has Southampton been soooooooooo slow with regeneration? (All that time Labour were in power in Southampton and what did they do????!!!) > It all boils down to the Union/Labour history of continuous disruption to business and the accumulated reputation of an uncaring workforce, often workshy! All the businesses of any note left Southampton! > What's left? A moaning, whinging, the world owes me a living mentality amongst too many Southampton citizens![/p][/quote]Actually Labour have onlt been in power in Southampton for a few months, before that it was your useless party ruining the show.[/p][/quote]Al the Tories were in power for 4 years the Lib/Lab coalition before that then we had Labour in power or did you forget the forward thinking June Bridles Labour council? In 4 years the Tory admin came up with the Cultural quarter, re vamp of train station ,modernisation of the area around station, New Fruit & Veg market ( wonder if Labour will go ahead with that?). Snow dome which Labour scrapped & then we have the Mayflower park,Town Quay development which after many proposals ABP agreed to go ahead with one of them & this is that proposal. So why make out this Labour Council are bringing all these things to the City & the last council did nothing? Even the new road lay out at Dock Gate 4 was a Tory plan so looks like they did quite a lot for this city just a pity Unions decided to go on a political dispute to rid us of the most forward thinking council we've had in at least 15 years![/p][/quote]And they sold off all the social infrastructure in Swaythling whilst at the same time Royston made sure his area was given a new community centre, despite Swaythling at that time having two Tory councillors. That will never happen again. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Wed 20 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about?
the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control.
I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through.
I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots?
please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Wed 20 Feb 13

loosehead says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about?
the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control.
I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through.
I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots?
please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing.
Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view.
It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved?
I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money.
what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port?
in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay?
I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls!
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.[/p][/quote]DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls! loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about?
the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control.
I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through.
I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots?
please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing.
Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view.
It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved?
I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money.
what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port?
in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay?
I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls!
Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.[/p][/quote]DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls![/p][/quote]Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Wed 20 Feb 13

George4th says...

Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about?
the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control.
I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through.
I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots?
please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing.
Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view.
It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved?
I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money.
what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port?
in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay?
I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls!
Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.
It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)!
I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country.
>
Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.[/p][/quote]DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls![/p][/quote]Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.[/p][/quote]It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)! I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country. > Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out! George4th
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

George4th wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about?
the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control.
I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through.
I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots?
please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing.
Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view.
It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved?
I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money.
what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port?
in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay?
I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls!
Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.
It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)!
I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country.
>
Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out!
As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.[/p][/quote]DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls![/p][/quote]Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.[/p][/quote]It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)! I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country. > Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out![/p][/quote]As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about?
the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control.
I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through.
I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots?
please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing.
Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view.
It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved?
I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money.
what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port?
in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay?
I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls!
Wrong ...... Aldermoorboy has never "argued" anything.
.
Been asked 10 times to explain how the IOW "thing" would work and he does not know.
,
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.[/p][/quote]DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls![/p][/quote]Wrong ...... Aldermoorboy has never "argued" anything. . Been asked 10 times to explain how the IOW "thing" would work and he does not know. , Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

10:16am Thu 21 Feb 13

George4th says...

Inform Al wrote:
George4th wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about?
the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control.
I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through.
I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots?
please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing.
Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view.
It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved?
I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money.
what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port?
in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay?
I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls!
Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.
It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)!
I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country.
>
Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out!
As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have.
By my reckoning, if Phoney Tony and his sycophants hadn't allowed 2 Million immigrants into the country, we wouldn't have a problem with Social Housing!!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.[/p][/quote]DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls![/p][/quote]Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.[/p][/quote]It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)! I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country. > Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out![/p][/quote]As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning, if Phoney Tony and his sycophants hadn't allowed 2 Million immigrants into the country, we wouldn't have a problem with Social Housing!! George4th
  • Score: 0

10:43am Thu 21 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Well if the dredging is anything to go by how many of the jobs created will be for British Workers?
Surely all building work ( Mayflower Park Extension) will be put out to tenure going to the lowest bidder won't it?
Or are the council going to break EU rules & give it to a British Company who only employs British Workers?
It will be of no benefit to the residents of this city if this project is done by foreign workers.
the Boat Show will bring in guests for our Hotels & see a boost in the shops but as for construction work we'll see no benefit at all so what Guarantees can Labour give us the jobs will go to local workers ?
Well if the dredging is anything to go by how many of the jobs created will be for British Workers? Surely all building work ( Mayflower Park Extension) will be put out to tenure going to the lowest bidder won't it? Or are the council going to break EU rules & give it to a British Company who only employs British Workers? It will be of no benefit to the residents of this city if this project is done by foreign workers. the Boat Show will bring in guests for our Hotels & see a boost in the shops but as for construction work we'll see no benefit at all so what Guarantees can Labour give us the jobs will go to local workers ? loosehead
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

George4th wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
George4th wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city.
I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs.
Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples!
Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it?
have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge.
The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors.
This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park.

Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant!
Let me try to put it to you once again!
ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal.
This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY.
at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park .
shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina.
The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about?
the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control.
I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through.
I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots?
please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing.
Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view.
It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved?
I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money.
what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port?
in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay?
I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls!
Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.
It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)!
I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country.
>
Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out!
As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have.
By my reckoning, if Phoney Tony and his sycophants hadn't allowed 2 Million immigrants into the country, we wouldn't have a problem with Social Housing!!
I think that is what I said. Pity that the WORKING class who cannot afford to buy homes are being so cynically abused by the old Etonians. The last three PMs, which includes the current tw4t, have been progressively the worst we have been the worst we have ever had. I'm not going to say we can never have a worse one because that's what I said about Brown and was proven wrong so very quickly.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.[/p][/quote]DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls![/p][/quote]Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.[/p][/quote]It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)! I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country. > Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out![/p][/quote]As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning, if Phoney Tony and his sycophants hadn't allowed 2 Million immigrants into the country, we wouldn't have a problem with Social Housing!![/p][/quote]I think that is what I said. Pity that the WORKING class who cannot afford to buy homes are being so cynically abused by the old Etonians. The last three PMs, which includes the current tw4t, have been progressively the worst we have been the worst we have ever had. I'm not going to say we can never have a worse one because that's what I said about Brown and was proven wrong so very quickly. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Pikey-Biker says...

George4th wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
George4th wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls!
Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.
It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)! I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country. > Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out!
As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have.
By my reckoning, if Phoney Tony and his sycophants hadn't allowed 2 Million immigrants into the country, we wouldn't have a problem with Social Housing!!
Quite liked Tony, pity he resigned
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.[/p][/quote]DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls![/p][/quote]Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.[/p][/quote]It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)! I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country. > Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out![/p][/quote]As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning, if Phoney Tony and his sycophants hadn't allowed 2 Million immigrants into the country, we wouldn't have a problem with Social Housing!![/p][/quote]Quite liked Tony, pity he resigned Pikey-Biker
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

****-Biker wrote:
George4th wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
George4th wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.
I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.
Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.
Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?
Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.
Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to
Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping
Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.
If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.
Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?
I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.
DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls!
Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.
It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)! I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country. > Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out!
As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have.
By my reckoning, if Phoney Tony and his sycophants hadn't allowed 2 Million immigrants into the country, we wouldn't have a problem with Social Housing!!
Quite liked Tony, pity he resigned
I'm indifferent about Tony, it was Gordon I considered the worst PM we could ever have. Unfortunately I was proven wrong so very quickly.
[quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The expansion of Southampton port, creating up to 4,000 jobs. The redevelopment of Royal Pier, creating around 6,000 jobs. Now they are joking to create 4,000 jobs in the Docks they would have to be talking about Ship building and repairing, unless creating 4,000 jobs though out the UK. Royal Pier 6,000 jobs this is the biggest joke, all they can do really is rebuild royal pier, the moment they start to reclaim land infront of Mayflower Park then that land becomes part of the park and will have the same rules and regulations as the park so no building work can be done on it.[/p][/quote]I agree about the numbers hype Southy - there's not a journalist on any paper who can be trusted to put the correct number of zeroes or a decimal point in the right place. But it still sounds like overdue good news, and even a tenth of the figures quoted will be a shot in the arm for employment confidence in the city. I hope this means the Dibden Bay initiative will be relaunched, this time with a planning inspector who is not so easily bought.[/p][/quote]Ello Andy long time, I don't think its the journalist at fault so much on this one with numbers even low they did not question the numbers, its your elite Right Wing Politicians and there Capitalist friends who are at fault they are trying to get the feel good factor in and using there controlled media, when its all finished I think it be luckly to have extra 100 part time jobs. Dibden bay not going to happen, the docks don't have power like they did have when it was state owned, plus the National Parks have been expressing an interest in that land, and you know what they are like, compulsory order are to easy for them to get hold off.[/p][/quote]Easy remedy! take back the reclaimed land & use it to expand the Port this side of the water then no more dog toilets for Hythe Marina simples! Southy do you remember commenting on that proposal(Mayflower Park)when the Tories first proposed it? weren't you opposed to it? have you changed you point of view now?[/p][/quote]Yes I was and still am, Mayflower park is for the people of Southampton to use for what ever leisure they chose and that includes the water edge. The Torys I am sure all ready know that they could never build on any land dealing with Mayflower park, and all they was doing was wasting tax payers money on designers and spin doctors. This in what I have pointed out puts a total block on any development on the park and the tidal ground infront of the park. Where are they going to expand the docks on this side of the river, all they can do now is buy back the parts that have been sold off, the Container port was built in the wrong place to start with.[/p][/quote]Southy there you go again with you Anti Tory rant! Let me try to put it to you once again! ABP were totally against the Tory proposals that were originally proposed but with a few modifications & with land being reclaimed for both housing & dock related business they both came to a negotiated deal. This would see dredged materials to fill in the edges of mayflower Park Expanding the actual land area then you would have a pontoon style Marina with a walk way around the Marina to the reclaimed land that would be where the Royal Pier & town Quay. if the Docks felt it should give up on Dibden the land could be taken to expand this area further out making the channel where Dibden reclaimed land is in other words restoring the BAY. at no time have they said a permanent structure would be built at the water end of Mayflower Park . shall I say it again NO PERMANENT structure at the waters end of Mayflower Park as this was what ABP objected to[/p][/quote]Go and look at the pr designs, the plans included reclaiming the land (tidal ground) in front of Mayflower park, and to build a Casino come hotel plus a marina on land that would be reclaimed infront of the park, on the other side reclaim about 150 feet and the rest marina. The reclaim land in front of the park was going to go from the corner of the park to the end of the pier giving a triangle bit a land. (ABP can not object to that because it do not belong to ABP nor did it interfere with shipping[/p][/quote]Casino/hotel and marina? Sounds better than what is there currently, which is nothing.[/p][/quote]If the end result is better than the mess that exists, the Rules an Regulations should be altered to accomodate it. I suspect our tory bigots are afraid that a Labour council will actually get something right for once, how gauling would that be for their egos? Vote for Hope and hope for the best.[/p][/quote]Osprey what the hell are you going on about? the development of the Mayflower Park was agreed with by ABP & Southampton council when the tories were in control. I'll give Labour credit for carrying this development through. I'll also give credit of the way they're working with another council run by a different political party for the good of both cities I called for this to be done before Labour was elected so why talk about Tory Bigots? please explain what you mean please?[/p][/quote]I was generalising, not all tories are bad, it's only certain ones that I am picking out, those with single minded political views. Like Al I would prefer all Politics was taken out of the equation, had it been, your swimming pool wouldn't have been put in jeopardy.[/p][/quote]DSo you mean Inform Al? he's UKIP or Labour it all depends on what hat he's wearing. Aldermoorboy argues that the deal with the Island would have saved both council's millions I also argue this point of view. It seems crazy just appointing that manager on £180,000 approx a year when if we had joined up the top managers post there was already some one who could already do the job so there's how many jobs saved? I'm a bit worried about what will happen when Southampton & Portsmouth get together to divide/spend the money. what if Pompey want to expand their cruise port? in direct competition with this city do we object or say okay? I'm happy we're working together but I just hope there's no pitfalls![/p][/quote]Whether I support any party does not depend on what hat I'm wearing, it very much depends on what the political parties are saying or doing. There was a time when I would have been considered a Tory as once upon a time they did work for the nation and its people, unfortunately this is not the case now. On matters affecting the working classes I have respect for the Labour party's position and although I see the benefit of getting out of the EU, the current governments efforts for their rich party donors at the expensae of the working man, mean the priority is to support the party most likely to rid us of the Tory scourge.[/p][/quote]It was my natural state to be Labour, given my background. I followed them until I realised that Harold Wilson et al did nothing for the future of this country! They stood still and went backwards! They (and the Unions) were the reason for our out of date heavy industries going out of business (together with the rest of our undustrial base!)! I'll give Wilson one thing, he did try to rein in the Unions at the end of the 60s, and Failed! Even he knew that the Unions were killing this country. > Thank goodness a woman came along and sorted it out![/p][/quote]As I have said elsewhere Maggie was not all bad and was responsible for secure tenancies being given in social housing, the current despicable lot have taken this away, using the argument that there is insuficient social housing. The truth is easily seen when Cleggy says that they are all for more housing being built and finishes up by saying that only the difficulty of getting mortages is holding things up. He has obviously had the same Eton training as his mate C'moron, There is a desperate need for SOCIAL housing, due largely to the mistakes made by the man I had until recently considered the worst PM we could possibly have.[/p][/quote]By my reckoning, if Phoney Tony and his sycophants hadn't allowed 2 Million immigrants into the country, we wouldn't have a problem with Social Housing!![/p][/quote]Quite liked Tony, pity he resigned[/p][/quote]I'm indifferent about Tony, it was Gordon I considered the worst PM we could ever have. Unfortunately I was proven wrong so very quickly. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree