106-year-old resident loses battle against carehome closure

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242851/The-106-year-old-resident-doomed-care-home-evicted-freezing-snow.html



One of Britain's oldest women was tearfully forced out of her care home today despite her efforts to save it from closure at the High Court. Louisa Watts, 106, had begged to be allowed to stay at Underhill House in Bushberry, West Midlands but was removed from there in freezing conditions this morning. She was too upset to speak but was taken to a nursing home, five miles away, where she will now live. Mrs Watts, thought to be Britain's fifth oldest woman, had joined other residents at the High Court to appeal against Wolverhampton Council's decision to close the home because of budget cuts.http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/13/article-1242851-07D8085C000005DC-981_468x286_popup.jpg



She and fellow residents had argued that closing the care home would seriously reduce their lifespan.The council decided to close the 40-year-old home in April last year. It added that the property did not meet modern standards and improvements would cost £2million, prompting the legal battle.

The fight was led by campaigning solicitor Yvonne Hossack, who has prevented the closure of more than 80 care homes, but the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the council in October. Even Prime Minister Gordon Brown had urged the city council to reconsider their decision. But that, too, was rejected and after the appeal was turned down, Mrs Watts and the other residents were told they would be re-homed. This morning, the former hospital cleaner was removed from Underhill House and helped out of the front door in a wheelchair in freezing conditions.An absolute disgrace and if Gordon Brown really cared then he would order the council not to close this carehome, afterall he is always keen on giving our money to everyone on this planet except his own people - but as usual more smoke and mirrors from our politicians.

Bless them all and I wish them the best.

[Ardemax]

I'm sorry but how can you blame this on Gordon Brown? It has nothing to do with him, and he might have had more important things on his agenda...

But yes it is a disgrace and the council should have been more thoughtful.

[Bun]

lmao, you can't seriously blame GB for this? he tried to help, but at the end of the day the Courts made the final decision.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah he did try and 'help', but maybe he should be more willing to try and help by actually demanding that this carehome be kept open. He is keen on demanding things from other countries and giving billions away to them, but doesn't seem very keen to get involved with his own people.

Posts merged by Tash. (Forum Moderator): Forum Lag.

[Jordy]

I can't believe what I'm hearing. Spending £2 Million pounds would be a complete waste and I would be disgusted if they did spend that money on improving it considering the few people who live there.

It's not nice for anyone to be forced to move home, and I think it's sort of irrelevant if they're 80, or 106. However it's completely out of the question to keep it open and I would be thoroughly disappointed with the council if they did. While I do sympathise with the woman, it is not the end of the world and the Council have made the right choice. To fork out £2 Million just to stop inconveniencing an old woman really is ridiculous.

The government are very good to people in care homes if I'm completely honest, they pay around £500 a week for most people in care/nursing homes.

[Ardemax]

Yeah he did try and 'help', but maybe he should be more willing to try and help by actually demanding that this carehome be kept open. He is keen on demanding things from other countries and giving billions away to them, but doesn't seem very keen to get involved with his own people.

I'm sorry but there are loads of cases like these and Mr. Brown can't go around helping everyone like he's God.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I can't believe what I'm hearing. Spending £2 Million pounds would be a complete waste and I would be disgusted if they did spend that money on improving it considering the few people who live there.

It's not nice for anyone to be forced to move home, and I think it's sort of irrelevant if they're 80, or 106. However it's completely out of the question to keep it open and I would be thoroughly disappointed with the council if they did. While I do sympathise with the woman, it is not the end of the world and the Council have made the right choice. To fork out £2 Million just to stop inconveniencing an old woman really is ridiculous.

The government are very good to people in care homes if I'm completely honest, they pay around £500 a week for most people in care/nursing homes.

It is all very well saying that, but £2 million isn't a lot of these people especially when they hear of a government on the news everyday giving money to seemingly everyone who wants it across the world.


I'm sorry but there are loads of cases like these and Mr. Brown can't go around helping everyone like he's God.

Mr Brown certainly has the time, but as you seemingly suggested unknowingly;- not the effort. He appears to have time to mourn every celebrity death (Michael Jackson) or even to congratulate talent contest runners-up (Susan Boyle) but has little time for this matter.

[hah]

if he did help her you would be complaining that 2 million was wasted

[-:Undertaker:-]

if he did help her you would be complaining that 2 million was wasted

I wouldn't, as its a just cause. There is a difference between giving China £5 million on a visit there and giving £2 million to a nursing home for your own people.

[Tash.]

Going to have to agree with the majority here, spending 2 million on something like this would have caused loads of comments on how he had wasted that money on such a silly thing. Yes it's an inconvenience having to move home at 106, but really it is not worth spending £2 million arguing over it. It isn't Brown's fault at all, the accusations are getting outlandish.

[Jordy]

It is all very well saying that, but £2 million isn't a lot of these people especially when they hear of a government on the news everyday giving money to seemingly everyone who wants it across the world.



Mr Brown certainly has the time, but as you seemingly suggested unknowingly;- not the effort. He appears to have time to mourn every celebrity death (Michael Jackson) or even to congratulate talent contest runners-up (Susan Boyle) but has little time for this matter.£2 Million is an awful lot of money, especially to a council. Just because the government gives away too much money to other causes doesn't mean they may as well waste it elsewhere.

You were moaning in another thread about Cameron not doing enough to cut our debt (Which is fair enough) yet you're complaining the government aren't splashing out £2 Million on an old woman. This is not a national issue, or an issue for the government at all. I'm not saying he should be congratulating Susan Boyle, but it doesn't mean he should be looking into relatively minor things. Two wrongs don't make a right it goes without saying.

I'm sure you would complain about him interfering with our elected local councils anyway if he did do something, you'd probably accuse him of being power hungry, interested in minor issues and wasting money when we're in debt. I'm getting sick to death of this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

£2 Million is an awful lot of money, especially to a council. Just because the government gives away too much money to other causes doesn't mean they may as well waste it elsewhere.

You were moaning in another thread about Cameron not doing enough to cut our debt (Which is fair enough) yet you're complaining the government aren't splashing out £2 Million on an old woman. This is not a national issue, or an issue for the government at all. I'm not saying he should be congratulating Susan Boyle, but it doesn't mean he should be looking into relatively minor things. Two wrongs don't make a right it goes without saying.

No it doesn't, but when a group of old women are being treated awfully by their council and when a government says it has no money to keep this home open, yet has the money to give the rest of the world you can clearly see my point. Think it now; money to China or money to causes like this? - of course we would pick this issue. It isn't a matter of great importance to the nation, but neither is Susan Boyle and we certainly don't need Mr Brown telling us all how great we feel for her.


I'm sure you would complain about him interfering with our elected local councils anyway if he did do something, you'd probably accuse him of being power hungry, interested in minor issues and wasting money when we're in debt. I'm getting sick to death of this.

Actually I wouldn't, i'd call him compassionate and caring for once and would certainly respect him a great deal more;- so perhaps maybe stop assuming what I would and would not think because you are totally off mark when it comes to that.

[Ardemax]

Mr Brown certainly has the time, but as you seemingly suggested unknowingly;- not the effort. He appears to have time to mourn every celebrity death (Michael Jackson) or even to congratulate talent contest runners-up (Susan Boyle) but has little time for this matter.

My local shop is getting shut down. Someone is going to lose their job.

Mr. Brown, can you fund the taxes and cost of it so I can have my daily freddo?

[-:Undertaker:-]

My local shop is getting shut down. Someone is going to lose their job.

Mr. Brown, can you fund the taxes and cost of it so I can have my daily freddo?

Far different, these people rely on the state because they are incapable of looking after themselves through no fault of their own.

[Jordy]

No it doesn't, but when a group of old women are being treated awfully by their council and when a government says it has no money to keep this home open, yet has the money to give the rest of the world you can clearly see my point. Think it now; money to China or money to causes like this? - of course we would pick this issue. It isn't a matter of great importance to the nation, but neither is Susan Boyle and we certainly don't need Mr Brown telling us all how great we feel for her.



Actually I wouldn't, i'd call him compassionate and caring for once and would certainly respect him a great deal more;- so perhaps maybe stop assuming what I would and would not think because you are totally off mark when it comes to that.What do you mean compassionate? They're only moving homes it's not like they're being left out in the cold to die. The council aren't treating them awfully, they're simply doing what's right. If it isn't of great importance to the nation why do you think the PM should intervene?

Money to China or money to causes like this? Neither.

I'm afraid there is no pleasing you what so ever when it comes to mainstream politics, no matter what any of the parties do, they are wrong.

[Richie]

wow thats rlly cruel... but hey its the government there idiots.


oh nd I would ;)

[Ardemax]

Far different, these people rely on the state because they are incapable of looking after themselves through no fault of their own.

I believe I was on about the government funding them and helping them out.

It's not like they can fix everyone's problems, some care homes have to close.

The only reason this has been publiscised is because it houses the oldest woman in GB.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What do you mean compassionate? They're only moving homes it's not like they're being left out in the cold to die. The council aren't treating them awfully, they're simply doing what's right. If it isn't of great importance to the nation why do you think the PM should intervene?

Money to China or money to causes like this? Neither.

I'm afraid there is no pleasing you what so ever when it comes to mainstream politics, no matter what any of the parties do, they are wrong.

I think the PM should intervene because he seems to like intervening in everything but issues that effect his own people. On the compassion side, yeah it would of been compassionate;- they are old and frail, are all good friends and wish to remain living where they are until their last days. You are young, you might not find it a great deal but they do. Especially as she is 106 years old.

Oh there is pleasing me, just what the three main parties stand for is all the same and i'm certainly not pleased with that.


I believe I was on about the government funding them and helping them out.

It's not like they can fix everyone's problems, some care homes have to close.

The only reason this has been publiscised is because it houses the oldest woman in GB.

No he can't fix everyones problems you are right, so maybe he should stop pretending that he can (by giving billions to China, India and Zimbabwe) when that money could be better spent on a cause here.

[Bun]

so you winge about UK spending 5m on helping to bridge a gap with a big, dangerous superpower, and you think that spending 40% of that money on a single case of an old carehome being shut down is legit? the only reason why this case is worth reading is because it's a 106 year old... besides, what's with you quoting stories from the, uh what was it... 'daily fail'?

[-:Undertaker:-]

so you winge about UK spending 5m on helping to bridge a gap with a big, dangerous superpower, and you think that spending 40% of that money on a single case of an old carehome being shut down is legit? the only reason why this case is worth reading is because it's a 106 year old... besides, what's with you quoting stories from the, uh what was it... 'daily fail'?

Yeah I do, especially when China has actually got too much money (yeah thats true, its provinces actually have hundreds of billions in surplus to spend and they don't know how they are going to spend it) and our country is in debt. There was nothing to bridge with China, more to the point China isn't even a superpower yet.

Here we go on the newspaper stories again, if you don't like it post some Guardian stories about how Gordon Brown saved the worlds financial banking system and saved us all at Copenhagen - afterall in his own words he 'saved the world'. Meanwhile, i'd rather stick to the real world and post stories such as this which highlights and prompts debate on how our country spends its money, and even more so prompts debate about care for the elderly.

[Bun]

Yeah I do, especially when China has actually got too much money (yeah thats true, its provinces actually have hundreds of billions in surplus to spend and they don't know how they are going to spend it) and our country is in debt. There was nothing to bridge with China, more to the point China isn't even a superpower yet.

Here we go on the newspaper stories again, if you don't like it post some Guardian stories about how Gordon Brown saved the worlds financial banking system and saved us all at Copenhagen - afterall in his own words he 'saved the world'. Meanwhile, i'd rather stick to the real world and post stories such as this which highlights and prompts debate on how our country spends its money, and even more so prompts debate about care for the elderly.
no, you'll just do anything to have a dig at gordon brown.

[Nixt]

I wouldn't, as its a just cause. There is a difference between giving China £5 million on a visit there and giving £2 million to a nursing home for your own people.

That £2 million would have came from the council's budget though, which is essentially different to money spent by the government... in a sense. That's a considerable sum of money for a council to spend, and if the elderly can be rehoused elsewhere rather than spending such a large sum of money on a care home that does meet the standard of living that is expected for people. Also, £2 million worth of repair to a care home would result in considerable disruption to it's residents. Also a bad idea.

I recognise that it must be quite a blow to the residents. Some will have lived there for quite a while, and it can be quite emotional having to leave your home. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel they are allowing emotion to cloud their judgement in that they refuse to accept what is best for both them, their community and the council. They are clearly stuck in their ways - opposed to change, as most elderly people are.

As for blaming Gordon Brown, you are being ridiculous. It is not his fault, at all. You make him sound like some kind of dictator - "order" the council not to close the home, what a silly proposition :s. Besides, this is now a judicial decision and therefore Gordon Brown can have no influence over it. You are clearly letting your hate for our government and in particular, Mr Brown, influence your opinion on this matter to an extent you are sounding a bit stupid. Seriously, not everything is Gordon Brown's fault and there is only so much he can do. It's rather annoying how you turn every bit of political news into a rant about how awful Gordon Brown is, or how amazing UKIP is. I understand this has been said numerous times before, but it really does take the piss a little. Then again, you do read the Daily Mail...

I do love you though, Dan.

[-:Undertaker:-]

no, you'll just do anything to have a dig at gordon brown.

Yes, because it is wrong the way it works.


That £2 million would have came from the council's budget though, which is essentially different to money spent by the government... in a sense. That's a considerable sum of money for a council to spend, and if the elderly can be rehoused elsewhere rather than spending such a large sum of money on a care home that does meet the standard of living that is expected for people. Also, £2 million worth of repair to a care home would result in considerable disruption to it's residents. Also a bad idea.

I recognise that it must be quite a blow to the residents. Some will have lived there for quite a while, and it can be quite emotional having to leave your home. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel they are allowing emotion to cloud their judgement in that they refuse to accept what is best for both them, their community and the council. They are clearly stuck in their ways - opposed to change, as most elderly people are.

As for blaming Gordon Brown, you are being ridiculous. It is not his fault, at all. You make him sound like some kind of dictator - "order" the council not to close the home, what a silly proposition :s. Besides, this is now a judicial decision and therefore Gordon Brown can have no influence over it. You are clearly letting your hate for our government and in particular, Mr Brown, influence your opinion on this matter to an extent you are sounding a bit stupid. Seriously, not everything is Gordon Brown's fault and there is only so much he can do. It's rather annoying how you turn every bit of political news into a rant about how awful Gordon Brown is, or how amazing UKIP is. I understand this has been said numerous times before, but it really does take the piss a little. Then again, you do read the Daily Mail...

I do love you though, Dan.

Gordon Brown can order every single one of his 352 MPs to vote for what he wants (government policy), so if you class what i'm saying as me calling Gordon Brown a dictator then you will surely be shocked by the existence of government whips within parliament. I do not hate Gordon Brown, nor am I saying this is his fault - yet again words are being put in my mouth.

I have clearly stated that he and his party have got their priorities totally and utterly wrong, that doesn't mean it [this closure] is his fault, that merely means he is wrong the way he has gone about this issue and other issues.

It is rather even more annoying for me the way UKIP gets brought into this every single time, when UKIP have nothing to do with this subject at all. It has been proven time and time again that it is not myself who brings the subject of UKIP up, it is other members and infact, you yourself have just proven me correct yet again.

The Daily Mail, just as UKIP is being brought up again and again and again. However i'm not sure I care, because its evident the other side is running out of things to say when they start attacking what newspaper I may read. From debate to personal attacks, but hey whats changed.

[Smits]

I dont see how this is such a big issue. Buildings close all the time. The only reason this is even being reported is ebcause of her age, which to be honest, is irelevant to the case.

[Black_Apalachi]

What Dan is basically saying is;

money spent on our most senior citizens > money wasted on other countries that are nothing to do with us,

..and I have to say I agree.

[Geraint]

yeah, they closed a care home but they all got moved to a different one. they haven't put them in the jungle or something.

[Black_Apalachi]

They say their lives will be shortened because of the move though, which is actually believable - especially with being moved on a day like today!

[Bun]

Gordon Brown can order every single one of his 352 MPs to vote for what he wants (government policy), so if you class what i'm saying as me calling Gordon Brown a dictator then you will surely be shocked by the existence of government whips within parliament. I do not hate Gordon Brown, nor am I saying this is his fault - yet again words are being put in my mouth.

I have clearly stated that he and his party have got their priorities totally and utterly wrong, that doesn't mean it [this closure] is his fault, that merely means he is wrong the way he has gone about this issue and other issues.

It is rather even more annoying for me the way UKIP gets brought into this every single time, when UKIP have nothing to do with this subject at all. It has been proven time and time again that it is not myself who brings the subject of UKIP up, it is other members and infact, you yourself have just proven me correct yet again.

The Daily Mail, just as UKIP is being brought up again and again and again. However i'm not sure I care, because its evident the other side is running out of things to say when they start attacking what newspaper I may read. From debate to personal attacks, but hey whats changed.
wrong. he can't ORDER them, only bribe them. even on three line whips, an MP who does not tow the party line will not be punished formally. those who do tow the party lines consistently however, may be rewarded with a nice cosey seat in the cabinet.

and regarding saying brown is in the wrong for attacking this problem the wrong way... that's your opinion, not a fact, i don't think you understand the difference between the two?

last line - that's just politics...

[alexxxxx]

council is pretty much split 50:50 tory/labour with 5 lib dems. surely you can't just blame labour..

and 2million is a waste on this..

[GommeInc]

£2,000,000 isn't alot for something that could of had a long-term future :S Loads of you seem to think it's a one off payment to fix the home for a short-term then demolish it, like the payment and improvements were only going to be put in place for as long as the eldest resident of 106 has left in her :/ £2,000,000 isn't alot, more is spent on roads which just get destroyed within a year anyway.

Woah, that care-home is huge! If the home was tiny and the 2 million was going to spent on a building that was small, it would be a waste, but from what Google has produced, and the pictures taken of the home, it wasn't a tiny building :/ Though if there wasn't alot of residents to begin with, then there would be problems. Still, not very useful they were kicking out old people so soon when they could of left it to die with dignity.

[alexxxxx]

£2,000,000 isn't alot for something that could of had a long-term future :S Loads of you seem to think it's a one off payment to fix the home for a short-term then demolish it, like the payment and improvements were only going to be put in place for as long as the eldest resident of 106 has left in her :/ £2,000,000 isn't alot, more is spent on roads which just get destroyed within a year anyway.

Woah, that care-home is huge! If the home was tiny and the 2 million was going to spent on a building that was small, it would be a waste, but from what Google has produced, and the pictures taken of the home, it wasn't a tiny building :/ Though if there wasn't alot of residents to begin with, then there would be problems. Still, not very useful they were kicking out old people so soon when they could of left it to die with dignity.

Well if they already have spare capacity in places that are better suited and meet new guidelines, it is a waste of money. Local government haven't got millions to throw away here and there and a lot have deficits.

[Alkaz]

People are in homes for a reason, major upset like this isnt good for anyone let alone them. Pretty shameful for the council to continue with this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

wrong. he can't ORDER them, only bribe them. even on three line whips, an MP who does not tow the party line will not be punished formally. those who do tow the party lines consistently however, may be rewarded with a nice cosey seat in the cabinet.

and regarding saying brown is in the wrong for attacking this problem the wrong way... that's your opinion, not a fact, i don't think you understand the difference between the two?

last line - that's just politics...

Which is basically ordering, if your MPs and councillors stop taking notice of you and your policies thats when you know you are finished. On the second part, I never said its all a fact so stop attempting to make me look stupid by twisting my words. Of course it is an opinion, if I didn't have opinions I wouldn't be human would I and I certainly wouldn't be posting in this forum.


council is pretty much split 50:50 tory/labour with 5 lib dems. surely you can't just blame labour..

and 2million is a waste on this..

I couldn't care whether it was Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, BNP or the Greens - it is wrong. Ontop of what GommeInc has stated; our population is ageing so why on earth are we closing down care homes which are structurally sound? - you say we have a deficit - so why on earth does the government refuse to cut spending, why does it refuse to gain a rebate from the EU, why does it refuse to stop handing out billions every year to other countries?

Because it seems to serve and care for everyone but its own people. £6 million today to Haiti yet Cockermouth has just been left with a mere £1 million. An absolute disgrace.


£2,000,000 isn't alot for something that could of had a long-term future :S Loads of you seem to think it's a one off payment to fix the home for a short-term then demolish it, like the payment and improvements were only going to be put in place for as long as the eldest resident of 106 has left in her :/ £2,000,000 isn't alot, more is spent on roads which just get destroyed within a year anyway.

Woah, that care-home is huge! If the home was tiny and the 2 million was going to spent on a building that was small, it would be a waste, but from what Google has produced, and the pictures taken of the home, it wasn't a tiny building :/ Though if there wasn't alot of residents to begin with, then there would be problems. Still, not very useful they were kicking out old people so soon when they could of left it to die with dignity.

Thank you, some common sense at last.

[alexxxxx]

I couldn't care whether it was Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, BNP or the Greens - it is wrong. Ontop of what GommeInc has stated; our population is ageing so why on earth are we closing down care homes which are structurally sound? - you say we have a deficit - so why on earth does the government refuse to cut spending, why does it refuse to gain a rebate from the EU, why does it refuse to stop handing out billions every year to other countries?


central government and local government are SPLIT. this has nothing to do with central government... the eu and the like have nothing to do with this whatsoever. my county is being ravaged by tory spending cuts meaning lots of public services are being cut, some offices closed causing people a lot of issues. it's what has to be done in local government. cuts have to be made and because of the conservative influence NOTHING is sacred. if ukip were running it, i doubt there would be any public care homes anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

central government and local government are SPLIT. this has nothing to do with central government... the eu and the like have nothing to do with this whatsoever. my county is being ravaged by tory spending cuts meaning lots of public services are being cut, some offices closed causing people a lot of issues. it's what has to be done in local government.

Central government funds local government, the EU is another can of worms but the EU also has a great deal of control over everything - you know this and I know this although you aren't all that keen on admitting the extent of its control - although this is another can of worms which has little to do with the subject at hand. On the subject;- yeah there are spending cuts and there needs to be, but I am saying that how can we refuse to fund real issues such as this care home when we are giving millions a day to the European Union and millions to other countries around the world all the time?

The answer is, none of it makes sense. The British people are paying for their own demise.

On UKIP - why are UKIP being dragged into this again?. Although it seems clear now that we want to discuss UKIP, UKIP would I presume in the short-term fund these sort of things as they are for this country, whereas in the long-term people would be persuaded to bankroll their own retirement through investing in housing and so on, thats how conservatism works.

[alexxxxx]

Central government funds local government, the EU is another can of worms but the EU also has a great deal of control over everything - you know this and I know this although you aren't all that keen on admitting the extent of its control - although this is another can of worms which has little to do with the subject at hand. On the subject;- yeah there are spending cuts and there needs to be, but I am saying that how can we refuse to fund real issues such as this care home when we are giving millions a day to the European Union and millions to other countries around the world all the time?

look, i don't give a toss about what you think of the EU. Nor is it relevant. Yes, local government gets a PROPORTION of its income from national government, it recieves a fixed amount every year, no doubt this amount is decreasing. I heard the EU controls how much milk you're allowed to put your on your cereal in the morning. :rolleyes:


On UKIP - why are UKIP being dragged into this again?. Although it seems clear now that we want to discuss UKIP, UKIP would I presume in the short-term fund these sort of things as they are for this country, whereas in the long-term people would be persuaded to bankroll their own retirement through investing in housing and so on, thats how conservatism works.
UKIP are a corrupt joke. and it's far right views on social welfare which will no doubt be fine for the rich, will not go down well with those on low to medium incomes. do you want to be like in the US where old people have to work till they're dead because they can't afford the medecine? that's what real conservatism leads to so don't tell me that you believe that this home should be paid to be kept open. surely if it's UKIP's policy to make people bankroll their own retirement, they should start by closing down ineffective and costly care homes..?

[-:Undertaker:-]

look, i don't give a toss about what you think of the EU. Nor is it relevant. Yes, local government gets a PROPORTION of its income from national government, it recieves a fixed amount every year, no doubt this amount is decreasing. I heard the EU controls how much milk you're allowed to put your on your cereal in the morning. :rolleyes:Yeah so central government does have a say over local government, and why have you brought the European Union itself up when it has nothing to do with this subject?? :S As I was only referring to the EU and other large money expenditures as examples for how we could easily afford to keep this care home open.


UKIP are a corrupt joke. and it's far right views on social welfare which will no doubt be fine for the rich, will not go down well with those on low to medium incomes. do you want to be like in the US where old people have to work till they're dead because they can't afford the medecine? that's what real conservatism leads to so don't tell me that you believe that this home should be paid to be kept open. surely if it's UKIP's policy to make people bankroll their own retirement, they should start by closing down ineffective and costly care homes..?No I don't, I want safety nets but not outright greed. My Dad is unemployed at the moment - we are not rich, yeah we can afford things because we saved up. THAT is conservatism, true conservatism. The individual looks after himself rather than relying on somebody else (the state) to pamper him and to give him all he needs. This is alexxx where history comes into play, socialism does not allow prosperity because it is all very well and fine down on paper and in dreams but not in the real world.

Go ask the people of Eastern Europe, Cambodia, North Korea, China, Vietnam and others if they enjoyed their time in socialist paradise. Conservatism works, socialism does not. This was even futher proved by the performance of the British economy from 1970 - present with 1979 being the turning point.

The fact is that socialist hates success, it hates anyone who wants to better themselves. Do not call UKIP corrupt when you support a federal europe without the British or European people being given a say, that is the height of hypocrisy not to mention the fact that the EU's audits haven't been checked in years with billions and billions missing.

I told you before, the sensible policy would be to keep these care homes open and we could very well do this;- we have the resources for the money so let us spend it here rather than everywhere else. As we have a ageing population, the long-term policy should be to give people and educate people about the fact that investing in something will secure your future, this would in turn mean less people relying on the state when they are older - thus leaving the country in better shape.

[Bun]

Which is basically ordering, if your MPs and councillors stop taking notice of you and your policies thats when you know you are finished.
completely depends on which model of representation you favour.

[alexxxxx]

Yeah so central government does have a say over local government, and why have you brought the European Union itself up when it has nothing to do with this subject?? :S As I was only referring to the EU and other large money expenditures as examples for how we could easily afford to keep this care home open.

There's a formula about how much money local government is given by central government, but central government has little power over how it's spent.



No I don't, I want safety nets but not outright greed. My Dad is unemployed at the moment - we are not rich, yeah we can afford things because we saved up. THAT is conservatism, true conservatism. The individual looks after himself rather than relying on somebody else (the state) to pamper him and to give him all he needs. This is alexxx where history comes into play, socialism does not allow prosperity because it is all very well and fine down on paper and in dreams but not in the real world.

Well that's what they are DESIGNED to be. That's what benefits are for. That's what the NHS is. Ask the single parent working on £6/hour if they could POSSIBLY afford healthcare or saving for retirement. It's not possible for a lot of people. Even people on modest money can't afford to. I'm lucky enough to have parents who can afford to save for me. But I know people who will come out of university with stupid amounts of debt. In your world, this anglo-american model of capitalism should help everyone. It teaches people there is always room at the top if they work hard enough. In reality, it's a pyramid scheme benefiting the mega rich.

[-:Undertaker:-]

completely depends on which model of representation you favour.

I favour the abolition of whips, but in this current system Gordon Brown has the influence to divert money from central government to local government in case of emergency.


There's a formula about how much money local government is given by central government, but central government has little power over how it's spent.

Well that's what they are DESIGNED to be. That's what benefits are for. That's what the NHS is. Ask the single parent working on £6/hour if they could POSSIBLY afford healthcare or saving for retirement. It's not possible for a lot of people. Even people on modest money can't afford to. I'm lucky enough to have parents who can afford to save for me. But I know people who will come out of university with stupid amounts of debt. In your world, this anglo-american model of capitalism should help everyone. It teaches people there is always room at the top if they work hard enough. In reality, it's a pyramid scheme benefiting the mega rich.

YES I am not saying lets get rid of free healthcare or benefits, I am saying that people should strive for the best;- you can see it all around you, kids who don't have any ambition because they can just fall back on benefits when they are older "it doesn't matter the state will look after me if I don't try" - how on EARTH can we expect to compete with the world when an attitude like that is spreading, epsecially around families whom are poorer and whose kids have not known any better.

The anglo-saxon model DOES work, no its not perfect and NEVER will be and I have never said it will be. There will ALWAYS be hardship, socialism has been tried alexxx just listen to history, it failed.

Margaret Thatcher said, would you rather the poor be poorer? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw)

NEVER has that been more true.

[Bun]

I favour the abolition of whips, but in this current system Gordon Brown has the influence to divert money from central government to local government in case of emergency.
erm i wasn't on about whips lol. i was referring to the models of representation...

[alexxxxx]

YES I am not saying lets get rid of free healthcare or benefits, I am saying that people should strive for the best;- you can see it all around you, kids who don't have any ambition because they can just fall back on benefits when they are older "it doesn't matter the state will look after me if I don't try" - how on EARTH can we expect to compete with the world when an attitude like that is spreading, epsecially around families whom are poorer and whose kids have not known any better.

The anglo-saxon model DOES work, no its not perfect and NEVER will be and I have never said it will be. There will ALWAYS be hardship, socialism has been tried alexxx just listen to history, it failed.

Margaret Thatcher said, would you rather the poor be poorer? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw)

NEVER has that been more true.

you said that you'd favour the abolition of the NHS in earlier debates? and on to the matter of thatchers 'would you rather the poor be poorer?' well they ARE getting poorer comparatively with the rest of the UK and are suffering from social poverty caused by the relentless freemarketeering of the conservatives and labour party leaving people at the bottom of the pile without a foothold on the wall. The labour party did something by introducing the minimum wage, helping out millions, but has gone nowhere near well enough. Ex-mining towns are no-hope towns and places where traditionally working class people live in find it hard as there are little moderately well paid jobs anymore in manufacturing or other manual labour jobs as these jobs have been exported. These people haven't got jobs that they can easily pick up and training isn't always available or free (you yourself has said why should you pay for someone else's training.) These people in the cheaper ends of town have no ambition because their lives are so so so out of touch with middle class and upper class. Seeing what they can't have just makes people angry. Is it a coincidence how the most capitalist country, the usa, has much more crime than those with more social systems, like sweden, norway and finland. I wouldn't say so. Middle and Upper class move well away of these areas and schools and the local area decline as families with social issues move in and cause havoc as they have literally nothing else to do. Why work for minimum wage now when you get taxed on it!?

There's not a felt tip line where you can be either a capitalist country or a socialist country. It depends how you rate failure or not. Failure to generate rapid GDP growth, yes it did fail. People living in east germany now are complaining now. I have seen interviews with people where they prefer the old system as at least they had a job and they had more self-belief. Homelessness wasn't always as much of an issue in communist states, you were given a house and Healthcare is free. GDP is not the end-all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you said that you'd favour the abolition of the NHS in earlier debates? and on to the matter of thatchers 'would you rather the poor be poorer?' well they ARE getting poorer comparatively with the rest of the UK and are suffering from social poverty caused by the relentless freemarketeering of the conservatives and labour party leaving people at the bottom of the pile without a foothold on the wall. I have not said I would favour the abolition of the NHS. I have clearly said that the NHS needs cutting down and the issue is its management. The NHS is far too centralised. I would see how this pans out, if this radical reformation of the NHS did not work then I would see no alternative to the NHS other than privatisation.

On people getting poorer, people are not getting poorer. People are getting richer, why do you hate success? - not everybody can be successful and that is what you socialists need to learn. There will always be a gap between rich and poor, always.


The labour party did something by introducing the minimum wage, helping out millions, but has gone nowhere near well enough. Ex-mining towns are no-hope towns and places where traditionally working class people live in find it hard as there are little moderately well paid jobs anymore in manufacturing or other manual labour jobs as these jobs have been exported. Yes because the mines did not make money or a profit, they made a loss thanks to the stubborness and greediness of the socialist unions which had crippled both the Heath government and the Callagahan government in the 1970s. Why on earth would somebody buy British coal at £100 per tonne when they could buy Asian coal at £30 per tonne? - the answer is that they wouldnt and as the economy showed, they didnt.


These people haven't got jobs that they can easily pick up and training isn't always available or free (you yourself has said why should you pay for someone else's training.) These people in the cheaper ends of town have no ambition because their lives are so so so out of touch with middle class and upper class. Seeing what they can't have just makes people angry. Is it a coincidence how the most capitalist country, the usa, has much more crime than those with more social systems, like sweden, norway and finland. I wouldn't say so.Instead of moaning, getting angry and becoming jealous at other peoples success why don't they get of their backsides and do something. My family was never rich, infact my grandmothers side used to have to steal from the back of lorries just to all be fed properly in post-war Liverpool. What did they do? - they didn't rely on the state and others, they all worked hard and worked their way up, they didn't sit back and wait for the government to give them money or wait for the government to punish the rich.


Middle and Upper class move well away of these areas and schools and the local area decline as families with social issues move in and cause havoc as they have literally nothing else to do. Why work for minimum wage now when you get taxed on it!?This is why the lower end of the taxing system needs to be removed which would un-complicate the taxation system and would remove the poorest of the poor out of the tax system. On the families with social issues; well what would you like us to do to deal with scum such as that? - would you like us to tax the rich and give to them in the false hope that they will become good hard working citzens? - does not work alex.


There's not a felt tip line where you can be either a capitalist country or a socialist country. It depends how you rate failure or not. Failure to generate rapid GDP growth, yes it did fail. People living in east germany now are complaining now. I have seen interviews with people where they prefer the old system as at least they had a job and they had more self-belief. Homelessness wasn't always as much of an issue in communist states, you were given a house and Healthcare is free. GDP is not the end-all.I cannot believe you are saying this, what utter contempt and shallowness you show not only for your own freedoms and wealth, but for other peoples misery and suffering in a socialist state. Yeah they might of had jobs, but the fact is that they were dirt poor, had no freedom and had no hope of prosperity.

GDP is the end all i'm afraid, because as HISTORY has shown, not my opinion, but as HISTORY as shown is that without freedom and oppertunity you cannot create the wealth and prosperity that a democracy requires. As Thatcher said to Hughes;

You would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.

It is nothing but hatred for success and a belief that has no place in economies and belongs on the rubbish dump, along with the politics of Karl Marx and his socialist loonatics who created the 'socialist heaven' you seem to believe in; Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and the rest of them.

You go to North Korea and see what great lives they are living, yeah they have no taxes and free healthcare - but there is nothing there, because there is no money or wealth being generated there are no doctors, no medicines, no cures - there is no hope or motivation or tools for anyone to do better for themselves.

[alexxxxx]

I have not said I would favour the abolition of the NHS. I have clearly said that the NHS needs cutting down and the issue is its management. The NHS is far too centralised. I would see how this pans out, if this radical reformation of the NHS did not work then I would see no alternative to the NHS other than privatisation.

On people getting poorer, people are not getting poorer. People are getting richer, why do you hate success? - not everybody can be successful and that is what you socialists need to learn. There will always be a gap between rich and poor, always.

The gap between the richest quartile and the lowest quartile is becoming ever so larger. This causes SOCIAL PROBLEMS. THAT is true. They are not becoming closer together nor are they staying the same, it is growing. That is an issue economically.


Yes because the mines did not make money or a profit, they made a loss thanks to the stubborness and greediness of the socialist unions which had crippled both the Heath government and the Callagahan government in the 1970s. Why on earth would somebody buy British coal at £100 per tonne when they could buy Asian coal at £30 per tonne? - the answer is that they wouldnt and as the economy showed, they didnt.

I'm not arguing that it is an issue that the coal mines were shut down. I'm arguing that these people have had promises of new jobs, new training BROKEN.


Instead of moaning, getting angry and becoming jealous at other peoples success why don't they get of their backsides and do something. My family was never rich, infact my grandmothers side used to have to steal from the back of lorries just to all be fed properly in post-war Liverpool. What did they do? - they didn't rely on the state and others, they all worked hard and worked their way up, athey didn't sit back and wait for the government to give them money or wait for the government to punish the rich.

Do what exactly? Decent jobs are not always easy to come by? My family is the same, my dad was working full time at 16 and went to night school to earn more qualifications after his dad died young and my grandma needed someone else around the house (he went to a boarding school before that). It's not uncommon this thing called 'working hard.'


This is why the lower end of the taxing system needs to be removed which would un-complicate the taxation system and would remove the poorest of the poor out of the tax system. On the families with social issues; well what would you like us to do to deal with scum such as that? - would you like us to tax the rich and give to them in the false hope that they will become good hard working citzens? - does not work alex.

No, money is not the end-all of sorting out local areas, infact it can hard places. There is a shortage of decent teachers and decent schools in this country. Some teachers are no more than crowd controllers who's job can only be described as keeping the kids in school between 9am and 3pm. I go to a college where people from all different backgrounds go to (those who recieve £30/week EMA to those whose parents earn £500k+ year). It is a really well run establishment and my school beforehand was very good as well for a state school, though this might be to do with the intake of students, but I applaud some of the management there. What's the point in investing in IT when the kids can't be trusted to use it. Families with social issues will be attracted anywhere where the houses are cheap. There's not a lot you can do about it, but they ruin lives for everyone else in that community. I personally think some people are not fit for parenthood, that's the issue. The 'we're a nation of individuals' ridded people of any social responsibility. No one looks out for anyone but themselves and so some parents have grown up with that attitude and raising their kids not giving one thought about them, letting them fall in to crime with other likeminded kids. That's why you're considered a good parent in some circles if they've got an xbox and a TV because they believe that's good parenting.


I cannot believe you are saying this, what utter contempt and shallowness you show not only for your own freedoms and wealth, but for other peoples misery and suffering in a socialist state. Yeah they might of had jobs, but the fact is that they were dirt poor, had no freedom and had no hope of prosperity.

I'm not saying i agree with all out socialism because at the end of the day it DOESN'T work, but I think that a mixture of the two can find a good balance.



GDP is the end all i'm afraid, because as HISTORY has shown, not my opinion, but as HISTORY as shown is that without freedom and oppertunity you cannot create the wealth and prosperity that a democracy requires. As Thatcher said to Hughes;

You would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.

It is nothing but hatred for success and a belief that has no place in economies and belongs on the rubbish dump, along with the politics of Karl Marx and his socialist loonatics who created the 'socialist heaven' you seem to believe in; Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and the rest of them.

You go to North Korea and see what great lives they are living, yeah they have no taxes and free healthcare - but there is nothing there, because there is no money or wealth being generated there are no doctors, no medicines, no cures - there is no hope or motivation or tools for anyone to do better for themselves.
GDP isn't the end all. Why is Denmark consistently considered the greatest place to live in the world, with its high taxes and 'socialist' policies. Even with these 'burdens' on their economy they can still rake in a higher GDP per capita higher than us!

I don't think socialism/communism works all out, but elements about public ownership, free healthcare and high public spending creates a great environment to live in for everybody.

[Jordy]

Seems to be part of a much wider issue, after speaking to my mother who is manager of two private nursing homes, it seems this is the case; Councils throughout the UK are selling nursing homes, first of all it costs them an absolute bomb to run. All council employees get enormous pensions and can be part of unions etc, this costs the Council a lot, when the Council can instead just pay for them to live at a Private Nursing Home (The majority are now) it is much cheaper.

Councils are also making lots of cuts atm due to the economical situation and Nursing Homes typically take up a lot of valuable land so the Council makes an absolute fortune in the short term by selling them off.

Ironically, Gordon Brown has backed the 106 year-old lady you will be glad to learn, I have no doubt you won't praise him but it seems for once Dan, he has listened to you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/6568764/Gordon-Brown-backs-106-year-old-in-care-home-fight.html

The council has chosen to ignore him however, although it does show he spends time on issues like this as well as Susan Boyle :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

The gap between the richest quartile and the lowest quartile is becoming ever so larger. This causes SOCIAL PROBLEMS. THAT is true. They are not becoming closer together nor are they staying the same, it is growing. That is an issue economically. Of course they will grow, thats simple economies and what is wrong with it? - nothing. If my Dad gains a better wage than his counterparts for good work, what is wrong with rewarding hard work? - the answer is that there isn't anything wrong with rewarding hard work. SOCIALISM creates bad social problems, you can see it all around you. Kids who do not try because they know they can fall back on the state when they leave school, so it doesnt matter about doing good in school and succeeding 'because the government will provide for me'. You see kids on council estates, don't try in school and don't bother with anything because they have nothing to aspire to, and why should they? - they can just live off the state, which gets it money from the hard working people of this country.


I'm not arguing that it is an issue that the coal mines were shut down. I'm arguing that these people have had promises of new jobs, new training BROKEN.The government can only do so much, the government can not and should not just give them jobs as Labour governments are keen on doing. If you need to see any of these 'jobs' that Gordon Brown provides us which cost us billions every year, just check the pages of the Guardian for govt job after govt job of absolute jobsworth jobs.

Yeah it is terrible losing your job, but it happens all the time and when the fate of the country is at hand, the country comes first. If you want to blame somebody for the mines closing fully, the blame lies at the feet of the unions who pushed and pushed until all faith was just totally and utterly lost.


Do what exactly? Decent jobs are not always easy to come by? My family is the same, my dad was working full time at 16 and went to night school to earn more qualifications after his dad died young and my grandma needed someone else around the house (he went to a boarding school before that). It's not uncommon this thing called 'working hard.' Oh so its the governments job to give people jobs (which contribute nothing and benefit nobody) is it?. What would you like the government to do alex because it really is not making sense. Are you proposing a system where everybody has a job aka socialism aka only in dreams?


No, money is not the end-all of sorting out local areas, infact it can hard places. There is a shortage of decent teachers and decent schools in this country. Some teachers are no more than crowd controllers who's job can only be described as keeping the kids in school between 9am and 3pm. I go to a college where people from all different backgrounds go to (those who recieve £30/week EMA to those whose parents earn £500k+ year). It is a really well run establishment and my school beforehand was very good as well for a state school, though this might be to do with the intake of students, but I applaud some of the management there.Money is the end all, aswell as good management as you say. This is why government should keep away from business because we know from history that government can barely run itself, let alone the trains and buses (as proven in the 1970s)


What's the point in investing in IT when the kids can't be trusted to use it. Families with social issues will be attracted anywhere where the houses are cheap. There's not a lot you can do about it, but they ruin lives for everyone else in that community. I personally think some people are not fit for parenthood, that's the issue. The 'we're a nation of individuals' ridded people of any social responsibility. No one looks out for anyone but themselves and so some parents have grown up with that attitude and raising their kids not giving one thought about them, letting them fall in to crime with other likeminded kids. That's why you're considered a good parent in some circles if they've got an xbox and a TV because they believe that's good parenting.Nobody ever looked after anybody anyway Alex. If you lose your job, who do you rely on, society or the state? - you rely on the state. Hence why the concept of society doesn't exist, because it is the state which people rely on. We have a choice whether we commit crime, we have a choice whether we do good or not in school and we have a broad choice in life. It is up to the invididual to fail or to succeed in life, not the government.


I'm not saying i agree with all out socialism because at the end of the day it DOESN'T work, but I think that a mixture of the two can find a good balance.Of course you are saying this, you blindly ignore history and continue to push for a federal socialist Europe, and socialism in general. You wish to ignore hard work and rewards, and push for people to remain poor, aslong as the rich remain less rich. As she said to Simon Hughes, you didn't mean to say that but you did.


GDP isn't the end all. Why is Denmark consistently considered the greatest place to live in the world, with its high taxes and 'socialist' policies. Even with these 'burdens' on their economy they can still rake in a higher GDP per capita higher than us!Simply because up north they are more like that, Britain is not and Britain is right-wing. If we are going to use examples, I could very well point to the fact you ignored the example of Switzerland in the past when debating the European Union. No country is the same, but as shown from our own history alex - socialism has no place in Britain. A safety net yes, but not a gigantic state with its tentacles everywhere.


I don't think socialism/communism works all out, but elements about public ownership, free healthcare and high public spending creates a great environment to live in for everybody.Wrong they do not.

You continue to bypass history, lets put all out socialist countries aside for a moment. This very country had what you are proposing, a little mix. What did it end up as Alex? - a shattered and bankrupt economy and a government which was controlled by unelected socialists who drove this country futher and futher into the ground and pushed their socialism on the people of this country when nobody ever asked for it.

The people of Britain didn't ask for socialism.
The people of Eastern Europe didn't ask for socialism.

What Margaret Thatcher said was totally true yet there seems no real answer to it, you go on about the gap between income growing and growing but you can't have it both ways. Either you want the anglo-american version of Thatcherist economics where people can go as far as they wish provided they have the merit and qualities to, or you want the poor to be poorer, provided the rich are less rich.

Wealth creates jobs which in turn create wealth, government creates non-jobs which in turn create no wealth, only a burden.


Seems to be part of a much wider issue, after speaking to my mother who is manager of two private nursing homes, it seems this is the case; Councils throughout the UK are selling nursing homes, first of all it costs them an absolute bomb to run. All council employees get enormous pensions and can be part of unions etc, this costs the Council a lot, when the Council can instead just pay for them to live at a Private Nursing Home (The majority are now) it is much cheaper.

Councils are also making lots of cuts atm due to the economical situation and Nursing Homes typically take up a lot of valuable land so the Council makes an absolute fortune in the short term by selling them off.

Ironically, Gordon Brown has backed the 106 year-old lady you will be glad to learn, I have no doubt you won't praise him but it seems for once Dan, he has listened to you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/6568764/Gordon-Brown-backs-106-year-old-in-care-home-fight.html

The council has chosen to ignore him however, although it does show he spends time on issues like this as well as Susan Boyle :P

We pay very high taxes in this country, give millions to the EU everyday and millions to other countries everyday yet £2 million for our own people in their last years is considered too much money?. On Gordon Brown, yes Jordy;- all chat but no actions. Gordon is always fast to pledge millions to other countries but isn't so willing to pledge money in this situation is he, hes only interested in commenting on the situation in an election year.

When he backs up what he says with some action on the matter (as he does with everything else that is non-UK related such as Yemen and Haiti) then maybe he'll gain some respect from me.

[Technologic]

Gordon Brown has more important things to deal with than some old lady in a retirement home

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gordon Brown has more important things to deal with than some old lady in a retirement home

..things such as; Susan Boyle (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6404661.ece).

"Gordon Brown revealed today that he had phoned two of the judges from the TV show Britain's Got Talent to check up on the singer Susan Boyle after her admission to a clinic in north London last night."

Michael Jackson (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8120738.stm)

"Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both said they are "saddened" by the death of pop legend Michael Jackson."

or even John & Edward (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1225839/X-Factor-Gordon-Brown-labels-David-Camerons-favourites-Jedward-good.html)

"But while 18-year-old twins John and Edward Grimes and their fellow contestants were relaxing, they were being discussed by none other than Gordon Brown. Mr Brown, who is a self-confessed fan of the ITV talent contest, said the Irish twins, who have divided the nation, are 'not very good.' The Prime Minister’s comments come just days after his Conservative rival David Cameron declared the pair kept him glued to his seat."

[Technologic]

..things such as; Susan Boyle (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6404661.ece).

"Gordon Brown revealed today that he had phoned two of the judges from the TV show Britain's Got Talent to check up on the singer Susan Boyle after her admission to a clinic in north London last night."

Michael Jackson (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8120738.stm)

"Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both said they are "saddened" by the death of pop legend Michael Jackson."

or even John & Edward (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1225839/X-Factor-Gordon-Brown-labels-David-Camerons-favourites-Jedward-good.html)

"But while 18-year-old twins John and Edward Grimes and their fellow contestants were relaxing, they were being discussed by none other than Gordon Brown. Mr Brown, who is a self-confessed fan of the ITV talent contest, said the Irish twins, who have divided the nation, are 'not very good.' The Prime Minister’s comments come just days after his Conservative rival David Cameron declared the pair kept him glued to his seat."

So? This is just another media dig at Brown.

Anyway, better Brown and labour than the BNP in disguise (UKIP) who don't even know the difference between a Burqa and Hijab.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So? This is just another media dig at Brown.

Anyway, better Brown and labour than the BNP in disguise (UKIP) who don't even know the difference between a Burqa and Hijab.

No, thats the media reporting what Brown wants to be reported because Brown thinks it will make him look really cool and trendy and 'down wiv da kids' if he spends his time wringing his hands over Susan Boyle, Michael Jackson and Jedward.

Yet again UKIP brought into it, but no suprises there although i'm interested to know how UKIP are the BNP in disguise? - could it possibly be the fact that UKIP want to bring some decent control to immigration in this country? - could it be the fact that UKIP are one of the only parties to oppose the European superstate? - How racist, homophobic and facist of them. :rolleyes:

[Smits]

No, thats the media reporting what Brown wants to be reported because Brown thinks it will make him look really cool and trendy and 'down wiv da kids' if he spends his time wringing his hands over Susan Boyle, Michael Jackson and Jedward.

Yet again UKIP brought into it, but no suprises there although i'm interested to know how UKIP are the BNP in disguise? - could it possibly be the fact that UKIP want to bring some decent control to immigration in this country? - could it be the fact that UKIP are one of the only parties to oppose the European superstate? - How racist, homophobic and facist of them. :rolleyes:

Gordon Brown says he's saddenned by michael jacksons death? Wow, how irresponsible of him.

UKIP are BNP in disguise. Theyre the same, just represent themselves differently.

[AgnesIO]

On a rare occasion, I am against you on this Dan.

Do you think UKIP would have done better? I doubt it ;)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gordon Brown says he's saddenned by michael jacksons death? Wow, how irresponsible of him.

UKIP are BNP in disguise. Theyre the same, just represent themselves differently.

..so Gordon Brown isn't too busy to be dealing with a 106 year old and her elderly neighbours who are being thrown out of their carehome by their council - that is my point and its very simple and clear. On UKIP, would you like to show me their racist, homophobic and facist policies because i'd love to see them.

Or like every other Labour supporter, are you just saying that to discredit them?


On a rare occasion, I am against you on this Dan.

Do you think UKIP would have done better? I doubt it ;)

I think they would, as they would cut spending to areas such as the European Union and would cut foreign aid while we are in debt. If not, then i'd be as irritated at them as I am right now. I don't do tribal politics, I used to support the Conservative Party but now as they are no longer remotely Conservative I no longer support them. The same would go for UKIP if I started disagreeing on a lot of things with them/if they were in office and did a bad job i'd be as equally against them as I am against this government.

This government is wrong, not because it is Labour but because it is wrong. The same would apply to any other government.

[alexxxxx]

Of course they will grow, thats simple economies and what is wrong with it? - nothing. If my Dad gains a better wage than his counterparts for good work, what is wrong with rewarding hard work? - the answer is that there isn't anything wrong with rewarding hard work. SOCIALISM creates bad social problems, you can see it all around you. Kids who do not try because they know they can fall back on the state when they leave school, so it doesnt matter about doing good in school and succeeding 'because the government will provide for me'. You see kids on council estates, don't try in school and don't bother with anything because they have nothing to aspire to, and why should they? - they can just live off the state, which gets it money from the hard working people of this country.

The government can only do so much, the government can not and should not just give them jobs as Labour governments are keen on doing. If you need to see any of these 'jobs' that Gordon Brown provides us which cost us billions every year, just check the pages of the Guardian for govt job after govt job of absolute jobsworth jobs.

Yeah it is terrible losing your job, but it happens all the time and when the fate of the country is at hand, the country comes first. If you want to blame somebody for the mines closing fully, the blame lies at the feet of the unions who pushed and pushed until all faith was just totally and utterly lost.

Oh so its the governments job to give people jobs (which contribute nothing and benefit nobody) is it?. What would you like the government to do alex because it really is not making sense. Are you proposing a system where everybody has a job aka socialism aka only in dreams?

Money is the end all, aswell as good management as you say. This is why government should keep away from business because we know from history that government can barely run itself, let alone the trains and buses (as proven in the 1970s)

Nobody ever looked after anybody anyway Alex. If you lose your job, who do you rely on, society or the state? - you rely on the state. Hence why the concept of society doesn't exist, because it is the state which people rely on. We have a choice whether we commit crime, we have a choice whether we do good or not in school and we have a broad choice in life. It is up to the invididual to fail or to succeed in life, not the government.

Of course you are saying this, you blindly ignore history and continue to push for a federal socialist Europe, and socialism in general. You wish to ignore hard work and rewards, and push for people to remain poor, aslong as the rich remain less rich. As she said to Simon Hughes, you didn't mean to say that but you did.

Simply because up north they are more like that, Britain is not and Britain is right-wing. If we are going to use examples, I could very well point to the fact you ignored the example of Switzerland in the past when debating the European Union. No country is the same, but as shown from our own history alex - socialism has no place in Britain. A safety net yes, but not a gigantic state with its tentacles everywhere.

Wrong they do not.

You continue to bypass history, lets put all out socialist countries aside for a moment. This very country had what you are proposing, a little mix. What did it end up as Alex? - a shattered and bankrupt economy and a government which was controlled by unelected socialists who drove this country futher and futher into the ground and pushed their socialism on the people of this country when nobody ever asked for it.

The people of Britain didn't ask for socialism.
The people of Eastern Europe didn't ask for socialism.

What Margaret Thatcher said was totally true yet there seems no real answer to it, you go on about the gap between income growing and growing but you can't have it both ways. Either you want the anglo-american version of Thatcherist economics where people can go as far as they wish provided they have the merit and qualities to, or you want the poor to be poorer, provided the rich are less rich.

Wealth creates jobs which in turn create wealth, government creates non-jobs which in turn create no wealth, only a burden.



We pay very high taxes in this country, give millions to the EU everyday and millions to other countries everyday yet £2 million for our own people in their last years is considered too much money?. On Gordon Brown, yes Jordy;- all chat but no actions. Gordon is always fast to pledge millions to other countries but isn't so willing to pledge money in this situation is he, hes only interested in commenting on the situation in an election year.

When he backs up what he says with some action on the matter (as he does with everything else that is non-UK related such as Yemen and Haiti) then maybe he'll gain some respect from me.

right i cba with a complicated response but i'd like to make these points:

- you obviously don't understand 'simple' economics as wealth and income misdistribution is considered an economic problem as it hampers growth in the long run
- in the economy, public sector workers do add to it, if you don't know that then you know less about economics than you think.
- i am not a socialist
- the eu are far from socialist
- public sector don't pay enough for managers, this is especially true in local gvmnt
- denmark is not 'up north,' look at a map, same line as us
- if you've got friends or members of a community then yes they will help, plus i was really referring to parents
- people pay tax for public service --> government spends money on wages on jobs --> employees do jobs for council which helps people out --> buy goods --> creates jobs.
how is this any different to
people pay money for a service --> firm spends money on wages --> employees spend money on goods --> creates jobs.

Have you ever heard of the multiplier effect? Probably not because you don't know what you're on about.

& to add my thoughts on UKIP, they're a joke.

[-:Undertaker:-]

- you obviously don't understand 'simple' economics as wealth and income misdistribution is considered an economic problem as it hampers growth in the long run

Of course, but wealth in this country right now is fine. It would be nice for everyone to be well off and wealthy, but that doesn't mirror reality. We will continue to have more super-rich people, especially when the next boom occurs as house prices and everything will yet again reach great heights in value and investment. The world will get richer, Britain must get richer too.

Just because a a section of people are on higher wages than others does not mean we should have some sort of socialist wealth-redistribution tax/scheme implemented. We had this in the 1970s alex and all the countries which suffered socialism had this, and what happened? - nobody invested there because there was no money to be made, thus losing business and thus losing jobs, and and it carries on that means people at the lower end of the scale are without jobs and are worse off.


- in the economy, public sector workers do add to it, if you don't know that then you know less about economics than you think.

Public sector workers do not add to it, they are merely using money taken from the taxpayer and spending it, and thus it goes back to the government one way or another. We need some public sector workers, of course we do. This bureaucratic army that Labour has created now, and created back in the 1970s needs to be cut right back.


- i am not a socialist

If you are not, your policies and thoughts are still socialist regardless. This would be like me stating I am not conservative.


- the eu are far from socialist

The European Unions policies are socialist, it is supported by socialists and many of its key figures are socialist. Socialism is centralism, the very thing the EU is.


- public sector don't pay enough for managers, this is especially true in local gvmnt

Public sector pay too much money to jobsworths who contribute nothing, only red tape and bureaucracy.


- denmark is not 'up north,' look at a map, same line as us

I think you understand what I mean, Denmark and the northern countries all share the same rather historically neutral values and are totally different from the United Kingdom and United States whose values are most close.


- if you've got friends or members of a community then yes they will help, plus i was really referring to parents

If you lose your job, you rely on the state, not society, Society does not exist.


- people pay tax for public service --> government spends money on wages on jobs --> employees do jobs for council which helps people out --> buy goods --> creates jobs.

how is this any different to
people pay money for a service --> firm spends money on wages --> employees spend money on goods --> creates jobs.

Have you ever heard of the multiplier effect? Probably not because you don't know what you're on about.

The problem is, the top method has been tried and tested and does not work. A council and government in general is supported by the taxpayer, a private firm is usually not. Therefore a private firm is far less likely to make a loss. I do know what I am on about, it is you my friend who ignores history when its staring you in the face.

"And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain — and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing. (...) It’s the Labour Government that have brought us record peace-time taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease — they’ve run out of other people’s money. " - Margaret Thatcher


& to add my thoughts on UKIP, they're a joke.

Of course it is, it opposes the fact we are being posted into a federal europe through the back door, something you support fully and fully state that you oppose any referendum on the issue because you know what the outcome would be.

I don't know whether you call yourself democratic or not, but if you do then that is the true joke.

[alexxxxx]

Public sector workers do not add to it, they are merely using money taken from the taxpayer and spending it, and thus it goes back to the government one way or another. We need some public sector workers, of course we do. This bureaucratic army that Labour has created now, and created back in the 1970s needs to be cut right back.

The problem is, the top method has been tried and tested and does not work. A council and government in general is supported by the taxpayer, a private firm is usually not. Therefore a private firm is far less likely to make a loss. I do know what I am on about, it is you my friend who ignores history when its staring you in the face.


Right ok, a bit of an economics lesson for you now.

When PUBLIC sector workers spend money in the economy, this is not somehow any different to PRIVATE sector workers spending money in the economy. This money is not somehow any different to any other. This money spent causes growth, which leads to increased demand and therefore demand for labour, meaning more people are employed by private sector firms. Of course this would mean higher taxes, but as long as the public sector employee is doing a job that there is infact demand for (bin man, social worker, spending £2million pound on a new care home) and the multiplier effect of spending more money is +1 or more, then there is economic growth. A government should not be making a deficit, full stop. Ideally, if perfect competition was possible, that would be the ideal way of running the world, but it doesn't work.

Maybe you are using the word 'socialist' to meaning anyone who has any left wing thoughts in their head at all. I am not a socialist and I believe in free markets. People should have to work hard to earn their money, but equally people should be on an equal footing when starting off in life and people should have the chance to better themselves whenever they want. It is you who would prefer the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich, rather than the poor and the middle have proportional rates of growth. The creating wealth argument for lower taxes on top earners doesn't work. The wealth trickling down argument, although in theory it should, does not work. All out socialism, does not work.

You say that countries which suffer socialism must be dreadful. Alright by your definitions, pretty much all of Western Europe is socialist is dreadful, even though their quality of life is gaged to be much higher than our own. It just doesn't make sense what you're saying.

You're the exact 'conservative' that i despise. Look here, you are arguing against government waste in a thread where you want local government (already in a deficit) to spend £2million on making a care home safe, even though there are better facilities available, for a 109 year old woman. That is waste. This goes against your own theory of people should bankroll their own retirements and shouldn't rely on the state. You want people to have the freedom to do what they want, why are you opposed to muslim women wearing the niqab (i mean i am against them but i hate democracy :rolleyes: and the freedom of the person.) It's a complete contradiction. Society must does not exist, because you are not part of it. The 'looking out for number one' attitude is what destroys communities. I see someone who complains about the unintended consequences of policy they support. It's the constant belief that people can get something for nothing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Right ok, a bit of an economics lesson for you now.

When PUBLIC sector workers spend money in the economy, this is not somehow any different to PRIVATE sector workers spending money in the economy. This money is not somehow any different to any other. This money spent causes growth, which leads to increased demand and therefore demand for labour, meaning more people are employed by private sector firms. Of course this would mean higher taxes, but as long as the public sector employee is doing a job that there is infact demand for (bin man, social worker, spending £2million pound on a new care home) and the multiplier effect of spending more money is +1 or more, then there is economic growth. A government should not be making a deficit, full stop. Ideally, if perfect competition was possible, that would be the ideal way of running the world, but it doesn't work.IT IS DIFFERENT. It is provided by taxing the general public and the private sector and is then given to the government, which in turn it pays its people with that money. Higher taxes - OF COURSE! - because like all other socialists you want more and more, utter greed for something you can't have. In the past you have mentioned poor and rich, well heres one for you alex; families are taxed to the hilt in this country, do not tax them anymore. Why should somebody who has worked well, earned their place, be taxed more and more for their success? - it is like in schools, if you give bad kids trips out and not the good kids, you are rewarding failure and not success, which in turn makes the good kids think 'well why bother??'.

Government loses money, its well very well you writing that all out but it does not work. Why do you ignore history alex? - perhaps it is not me who needs the lesson you speak of because what you are proposing has been proposed throughout history and implemented, and the results were truly horrific.


Maybe you are using the word 'socialist' to meaning anyone who has any left wing thoughts in their head at all. I am not a socialist and I believe in free markets. People should have to work hard to earn their money, but equally people should be on an equal footing when starting off in life and people should have the chance to better themselves whenever they want. It is you who would prefer the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich, rather than the poor and the middle have proportional rates of growth. The creating wealth argument for lower taxes on top earners doesn't work. The wealth trickling down argument, although in theory it should, does not work. All out socialism, does not work.You are a socialist and you do not believe in free markets, you support the European Union [not a free market] and say if we left it would leave dire economic consquences for us as we would of left the market [not free market] and finally you want public ownership of firms [not free market]. NONE of that is free market alex, free market is without government interferring, free market is without organisations such as the European Union playing trade-bloc wars with other nations around the world.

The wealth trickling down argument does work alex, history shows that. Go and look at the 1980s, yes the gap grew between rich and poor but the poor were better off and the rich became richer also. Your argument is exactly what she said, you would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.

You only prefer to distance yourself from socialism because you know deep down that nobody would take you seriously if you openly stated you were a socialist. Afterall, whoever in the history of the world voted for their families business to be taken off them, whoever voted for bigger government, more government interferance and higher taxes? - nobody ever did.


You say that countries which suffer socialism must be dreadful. Alright by your definitions, pretty much all of Western Europe is socialist is dreadful, even though their quality of life is gaged to be much higher than our own. It just doesn't make sense what you're saying.Western Europe has free markets alex although these are being depleted by the European Union. Have you not heard of North Korea, USSR, China under Mao, Cambodia and Britain in the 1970s alex? - have you really not?. There is your fantastic socialism for you.


You're the exact 'conservative' that i despise. Look here, you are arguing against government waste in a thread where you want local government (already in a deficit) to spend £2million on making a care home safe, even though there are better facilities available, for a 109 year old woman. That is waste. This goes against your own theory of people should bankroll their own retirements and shouldn't rely on the state.No, its very simple. I have stated that with the waste our current government makes all the time, we could easily afford to keep this care home running, especially when it will have a long future as the population is ageing. On the theory, yes of course it does. However we are in 2010 now alex, and a 106 woman cannot go out and get a job and bankroll her own retirement. It must start with education, that is where you can teach sensible economics and can alert people to the fact that if they save and be conservative with their money, they can be well off in their old age and not have to rely on the state.

I don't despise anyone for their beliefs, I despise them for their actions. Another difference between us it seems.


You want people to have the freedom to do what they want, why are you opposed to muslim women wearing the niqab (i mean i am against them but i hate democracy :rolleyes: and the freedom of the person.) It's a complete contradiction. Society must does not exist, because you are not part of it. The 'looking out for number one' attitude is what destroys communities. I see someone who complains about the unintended consequences of policy they support. It's the constant belief that people can get something for nothing.Sorry but where have I said it should be banned? - oh you mean UKIP have stated it that they want it banned, well i'm sorry for not following my party blindly and having my own views and opinions alex. On the second part, sorry alex but history has shown and it is something you continue to blindly ignore. The invididual needs to be free from government, government has no place at home and no place in business. If you lose your job you rely on the state, not society.

I don't know where you pick this stuff up alex, either from College or reading socialist mainfestos or something or other, but it'd do you a great deal to go and actually read on the failures of socialism and more so, history in general.

[Seatherny]

It is all very well saying that, but £2 million isn't a lot of these people especially when they hear of a government on the news everyday giving money to seemingly everyone who wants it across the world.
Mr Brown certainly has the time, but as you seemingly suggested unknowingly;- not the effort. He appears to have time to mourn every celebrity death (Michael Jackson) or even to congratulate talent contest runners-up (Susan Boyle) but has little time for this matter.

If he spends the money on diff countries, its helping more than like 30 people - especially £2 million.

And about the Susan Boyle etc, do you know how politicians try and get the public to like them?


if he did help her you would be complaining that 2 million was wasted

Indeed. Mr. Brown can never do anything right.


I can't believe what I'm hearing. Spending £2 Million pounds would be a complete waste and I would be disgusted if they did spend that money on improving it considering the few people who live there.

It's not nice for anyone to be forced to move home, and I think it's sort of irrelevant if they're 80, or 106. However it's completely out of the question to keep it open and I would be thoroughly disappointed with the council if they did. While I do sympathise with the woman, it is not the end of the world and the Council have made the right choice. To fork out £2 Million just to stop inconveniencing an old woman really is ridiculous.

The government are very good to people in care homes if I'm completely honest, they pay around £500 a week for most people in care/nursing homes.

I agree. Council need to look after every penny.


Yes, because it is wrong the way it works.

Gordon Brown can order every single one of his 352 MPs to vote for what he wants (government policy), so if you class what i'm saying as me calling Gordon Brown a dictator then you will surely be shocked by the existence of government whips within parliament. I do not hate Gordon Brown, nor am I saying this is his fault - yet again words are being put in my mouth.

I have clearly stated that he and his party have got their priorities totally and utterly wrong, that doesn't mean it [this closure] is his fault, that merely means he is wrong the way he has gone about this issue and other issues.

It is rather even more annoying for me the way UKIP gets brought into this every single time, when UKIP have nothing to do with this subject at all. It has been proven time and time again that it is not myself who brings the subject of UKIP up, it is other members and infact, you yourself have just proven me correct yet again.

The Daily Mail, just as UKIP is being brought up again and again and again. However i'm not sure I care, because its evident the other side is running out of things to say when they start attacking what newspaper I may read. From debate to personal attacks, but hey whats changed.

If you bring in Mr. Brown, and turn it into politics and goverment, I don't see why UKIP cant be brought into it.

UKIP is just a dream party and they know they will never come to power. They just say what the British public want to hear. They know most of their ideas are not possible when it comes to implementing it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

]If he spends the money on diff countries, its helping more than like 30 people - especially £2 million.

And about the Susan Boyle etc, do you know how politicians try and get the public to like them?

Yeah and guess what, its our money for our people. We pay our taxes for our own people, not for the rest of the world. Britain first, the world second. On Susan Boyle, yeah I know and thats exactly what I have said. Therefore the argument that Mr Brown doesn't have the time to dabble in issues such as this simply do not stand up.


If you bring in Mr. Brown, and turn it into politics and goverment, I don't see why UKIP cant be brought into it.

UKIP is just a dream party and they know they will never come to power. They just say what the British public want to hear. They know most of their ideas are not possible when it comes to implementing it.

I thought you didn't like UKIP being brought up and claimed that it was me who brought UKIP up in every thread?;- as shown by this and other threads that has now been totally turned on its head. On what the British public want to hear, thats called democracy Saurav. The whole supposed point of having a parliament and a democracy is to do what the people want, not what you want, not what government whips want, not what your political party wants - what the people you represent want.

The likelyhood is that UKIP will not come to power you are correct, however the more they grow the more of an impact they will have on politics and more-so the Conservative Party as Conservative voters are becoming disillusioned with the Conservative Party.

Just as a pre-text, we now seem to be entering a debate so be warned that you may not like some of the things I believe in. :)

[Technologic]

Can i make a point... Wolverhampton City council is controlled by a pact between the lib dems and cons

[Seatherny]

Yeah and guess what, its our money for our people. We pay our taxes for our own people, not for the rest of the world. Britain first, the world second. On Susan Boyle, yeah I know and thats exactly what I have said. Therefore the argument that Mr Brown doesn't have the time to dabble in issues such as this simply do not stand up.



I thought you didn't like UKIP being brought up and claimed that it was me who brought UKIP up in every thread?;- as shown by this and other threads that has now been totally turned on its head. On what the British public want to hear, thats called democracy Saurav. The whole supposed point of having a parliament and a democracy is to do what the people want, not what you want, not what government whips want, not what your political party wants - what the people you represent want.

The likelyhood is that UKIP will not come to power you are correct, however the more they grow the more of an impact they will have on politics and more-so the Conservative Party as Conservative voters are becoming disillusioned with the Conservative Party.

Just as a pre-text, we now seem to be entering a debate so be warned that you may not like some of the things I believe in. :)
How do you know Mr. Brown has dont nothing at all regarding this?
Oh no, people were moaning about a building being broken down in Manchester, should Mr. Brown run down and go STOP THIS AND LET THE BUILDING STAY!!!!
There were people moaning about a tree, should he come down, analyse the tree and go LET THE TREE LIVE!!

No. He has more important things to do. The Prime Minister has more important things to do. Theres your local MP for small things ...

You dont seem to understand. Turning a Tescos thread into UKIP is useless. Thats what I was against. You brought up Mr. Brown from the very first post, hence turning it into a political debate instantly.
If you cant accept critisim of your party, don't bring up Politics. I think it was you who turned a feedback thread into a UKIP discussion. Thats what I am against. :rolleyes:

And yes democracy, but the UKIP dont seem to understand whats possible and whats not. They just say what the public wants to hear because they know they will never be in power, hence they dont need to worry about what they say being unrealistic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How do you know Mr. Brown has dont nothing at all regarding this?
Oh no, people were moaning about a building being broken down in Manchester, should Mr. Brown run down and go STOP THIS AND LET THE BUILDING STAY!!!!
There were people moaning about a tree, should he come down, analyse the tree and go LET THE TREE LIVE!!

Is this supposed to be funny(?)/a real point in this debate?


No. He has more important things to do. The Prime Minister has more important things to do. Theres your local MP for small things ...

Yeah I agree, so why is Mr Brown busy phoning around to find out whether or not Susan Boyle is ok?


You dont seem to understand. Turning a Tescos thread into UKIP is useless. Thats what I was against. You brought up Mr. Brown from the very first post, hence turning it into a political debate instantly.
If you cant accept critisim of your party, don't bring up Politics. I think it was you who turned a feedback thread into a UKIP discussion. Thats what I am against. :rolleyes:

Nobody has brought up UKIP, and infact it was you who brought UKIP up in the feedback thread about the forum going downhill.


And yes democracy, but the UKIP dont seem to understand whats possible and whats not. They just say what the public wants to hear because they know they will never be in power, hence they dont need to worry about what they say being unrealistic.

What is and isn't possible that UKIP is proposing?

[Technologic]

Labour doesn't even control the council, why should brown get involved?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour doesn't even control the council, why should brown get involved?

All 3 of Wolverhampton MPs are Labour MPs, secondly Labour has the most council seats in the area but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats control thanks to a coalition. Regardless of whether they control the council or not, if he believes it is wrong then he should get involved as thats what a democracy is all about. He does have the time, he has the words but he doesn't have the actions and that is my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverhampton#Wolverhampton_City_Council

[Bun]

Brown has expressed his opinions on this matter, which is the most he can do. It's too minor for him to personally get involved and would be unprofessional, it's the local councils job. He's not superman.

[Seatherny]

Is this supposed to be funny(?)/a real point in this debate?



Yeah I agree, so why is Mr Brown busy phoning around to find out whether or not Susan Boyle is ok?



Nobody has brought up UKIP, and infact it was you who brought UKIP up in the feedback thread about the forum going downhill.



What is and isn't possible that UKIP is proposing?

Yeah I was saying Mr. Brown has more important things to do :S But he somtimes makes comments on things such as Susan Boyle so the public think he is up to date with stuff ... its only minor :S

Link me to where it was me who first brought up UKIP in a feedback thread. If you can't then dont make baseless claims. Its getting rather silly now.

And I think the Tesco's thread is a good example that you turn a lot of threads into UKIP.

[TaffTalk]

Yeah dont blame Gordon Brown, he's only the Prime Minister, the guy who's leading the country -.-

I didn't even vote for this guy, infact 0% of the Population voted for 'No Balls' Gordon, what a democracy we live in. Bought time Elizabeth II got off her fat arse and excised a degree of divine right, dissolved Parliament so we can vote for a Prime Minister, useless old hag.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Brown has expressed his opinions on this matter, which is the most he can do. It's too minor for him to personally get involved and would be unprofessional, it's the local councils job. He's not superman.

Sorry, but Gordon Brown finds he has the time to give millions to causes such as India, China and the European Union. He also has the time to call people to check on how Susan Boyle is, then release a statement on it so everyone thinks hes really hip and trendy by watching XFactor.

He has the time to comment, but not the actions to back it up.


Yeah I was saying Mr. Brown has more important things to do :S But he somtimes makes comments on things such as Susan Boyle so the public think he is up to date with stuff ... its only minor :S

Link me to where it was me who first brought up UKIP in a feedback thread. If you can't then dont make baseless claims. Its getting rather silly now.

And I think the Tesco's thread is a good example that you turn a lot of threads into UKIP.

No, he says things like that so he seems really trendy to everyone, but everyone can see right through them. Nobody believes it. He'd gain a great deal more respect by insteading of phoning around after Susan Boyle, pledging central government money to keep this care home open. That is where he could gain respect.

On the thread, cannot find now but remember the one where you mentioned a 'certain member who brings up UKIP' and had a full on discussion about me behind my back, Jordy also was involved in that thread.

On the Tescos thread, i'll only mention UKIP if somebody else has or if its relavent, aka if the Labour Party/Party politics has been brought up. If I mentioned UKIP out of the blue then i'm in the wrong, but the fact is that most times it isn't even me who bring UKIP up, its you and others.

& again you have failed to show me what policies of UKIPs are unrealistic despite claiming they are.

[Jordy]

Yeah dont blame Gordon Brown, he's only the Prime Minister, the guy who's leading the country -.-

I didn't even vote for this guy, infact 0% of the Population voted for 'No Balls' Gordon, what a democracy we live in. Bought time Elizabeth II got off her fat arse and excised a degree of divine right, dissolved Parliament so we can vote for a Prime Minister, useless old hag.MOST HYPOCRITICAL POST OF THE DAY (L)

You criticise how are democracy works and then suggests the unelected Queen steps in :P

While I agree he wasn't directly elected, I do think this is one aspect of our political system which is good. Gordon Brown was elected in his own constituency, if they didn't vote him in, he couldn't be prime minister. And also, 35% of people who participated in the last election voted for Labour MPs, these elected Labour MPs chose a suitable leader for their party and also country.

[Seatherny]

Sorry, but Gordon Brown finds he has the time to give millions to causes such as India, China and the European Union. He also has the time to call people to check on how Susan Boyle is, then release a statement on it so everyone thinks hes really hip and trendy by watching XFactor.

He has the time to comment, but not the actions to back it up.



No, he says things like that so he seems really trendy to everyone, but everyone can see right through them. Nobody believes it. He'd gain a great deal more respect by insteading of phoning around after Susan Boyle, pledging central government money to keep this care home open. That is where he could gain respect.

On the thread, cannot find now but remember the one where you mentioned a 'certain member who brings up UKIP' and had a full on discussion about me behind my back, Jordy also was involved in that thread.

On the Tescos thread, i'll only mention UKIP if somebody else has or if its relavent, aka if the Labour Party/Party politics has been brought up. If I mentioned UKIP out of the blue then i'm in the wrong, but the fact is that most times it isn't even me who bring UKIP up, its you and others.

& again you have failed to show me what policies of UKIPs are unrealistic despite claiming they are.

I am sure it was you who turned it into politics and UKIP, hence others agree with me.
How typical, you mention it and now you "cannot find" the thread. Like I said, baseless claims.

Tbh, maybe he is wrong by giving away money to other countries, but I havent looked at the reason he did so, so I cannot comment.

However, £2 million just to improve a care home is too much. Instead the council should look to sell off many and use the money to build a better new one which can hold many people, hence saving costs in the long term.
You cannot blame Mr. Brown for it. Like I said, its the councils decision.

[Bun]

Yeah dont blame Gordon Brown, he's only the Prime Minister, the guy who's leading the country -.-

I didn't even vote for this guy, infact 0% of the Population voted for 'No Balls' Gordon, what a democracy we live in. Bought time Elizabeth II got off her fat arse and excised a degree of divine right, dissolved Parliament so we can vote for a Prime Minister, useless old hag.
how would you prefer a general election to work then?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am sure it was you who turned it into politics and UKIP, hence others agree with me.
How typical, you mention it and now you "cannot find" the thread. Like I said, baseless claims.

Tbh, maybe he is wrong by giving away money to other countries, but I havent looked at the reason he did so, so I cannot comment.

However, £2 million just to improve a care home is too much. Instead the council should look to sell off many and use the money to build a better new one which can hold many people, hence saving costs in the long term.
You cannot blame Mr. Brown for it. Like I said, its the councils decision.

A quote from that very thread is in Jordy's signature right now, if you can remember the thread better than me and prove me wrong, then please do.

On the 'I cannot comment' - indeed you cannot, because you jump into a thread and attack what i'm saying whether or not you actually agree with me/know what i'm talking about.

£2 million is not a lot of money to keep a carehome open as GommeInc I believe said earlier on in this very thread, why would you close, sell a carehome, then have to go through expensive planning, buying the plot, designing and building a new carehome when all the old one needed was some improvement work doing? - the fact of the matter is that does not make sense, its like knocking down a perfectly good house with a faulty house and rebuilding the whole thing again, just because of a faulty roof.

On the councils decision yes you are right, however Mr Brown could of rescued/pledged money from central government to that carehome to keep it open. Our politicians don't care about the people anymore, is it any wonder why people don't have any trust left in politicians anymore?. One week they hear of Gordon Brown giving £825 million to India, the next they hear a carehome with a 106 year old woman living in it is closing down due to a council being strapped for cash.

[Seatherny]

A quote from that very thread is in Jordy's signature right now, if you can remember the thread better than me and prove me wrong, then please do.

On the 'I cannot comment' - indeed you cannot, because you jump into a thread and attack what i'm saying whether or not you actually agree with me/know what i'm talking about.

£2 million is not a lot of money to keep a carehome open as GommeInc I believe said earlier on in this very thread, why would you close, sell a carehome, then have to go through expensive planning, buying the plot, designing and building a new carehome when all the old one needed was some improvement work doing? - the fact of the matter is that does not make sense, its like knocking down a perfectly good house with a faulty house and rebuilding the whole thing again, just because of a faulty roof.

On the councils decision yes you are right, however Mr Brown could of rescued/pledged money from central government to that carehome to keep it open. Our politicians don't care about the people anymore, is it any wonder why people don't have any trust left in politicians anymore?. One week they hear of Gordon Brown giving £825 million to India, the next they hear a carehome with a 106 year old woman living in it is closing down due to a council being strapped for cash.

Same question arises, why break down old schools and build brand new ones. Old ones had no problems, took in the same number of students.

Maybe you didnt read what I said properly, if they have one big one instead of various ones, it saves costs in the long term.

Anyway, you cannot expect Mr. Brown to interfere with everything. Like I said, if someone wants to cut down a tree, and the council says no, are you going to get Mr. Brown to come down?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Same question arises, why break down old schools and build brand new ones. Old ones had no problems, took in the same number of students.

Maybe you didnt read what I said properly, if they have one big one instead of various ones, it saves costs in the long term.

Anyway, you cannot expect Mr. Brown to interfere with everything. Like I said, if someone wants to cut down a tree, and the council says no, are you going to get Mr. Brown to come down?

It saves them money yeah, but in the long-term we are going to have to build hundreds, possibly thousands more carehomes. In Geography (although I am not sure this is the correct figure) it was something like in the next 50 - 100 years we will as a country have double the number of old people. This country is rich, no doubt about that. We have a large deficit at present, but if our economy and government was managed properly we could very well have one of the best countries in the world in terms of service and general quality of life, instead we waste it and give it away like theres no tommorow.

On Mr Brown, if Mr Brown didn't interfere in everything else that isn't even related to government then i'd accept that argument hands down, the point is that he doesn't.

[Seatherny]

It saves them money yeah, but in the long-term we are going to have to build hundreds, possibly thousands more carehomes. In Geography (although I am not sure this is the correct figure) it was something like in the next 50 - 100 years we will as a country have double the number of old people. This country is rich, no doubt about that. We have a large deficit at present, but if our economy and government was managed properly we could very well have one of the best countries in the world in terms of service and general quality of life, instead we waste it and give it away like theres no tommorow.

On Mr Brown, if Mr Brown didn't interfere in everything else that isn't even related to government then i'd accept that argument hands down, the point is that he doesn't.

But if they build one big carehome and sell of 6, it wont be that hard to recover the costs. Why? Because they will gain alot of money by selling the six properties.

I am not arguing on the fact that Mr. Brown shouldn't give money to other countries when this country is already struggling, I am saying that he doesn't need to interfere with things such as this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But if they build one big carehome and sell of 6, it wont be that hard to recover the costs. Why? Because they will gain alot of money by selling the six properties.

I am not arguing on the fact that Mr. Brown shouldn't give money to other countries when this country is already struggling, I am saying that he doesn't need to interfere with things such as this.

I don't know the details of this case, if they are closing this carehome merely because of being strapped for cash then that is where central government should of stepped in, aka Gordon Brown. If you sell a carehome, the next time you need one the chances are that you will have to build one totally from scratch. This in the long-term is an enormous waste of money.

Mr Brown shouldn't interfere you are correct, but when he interferes in the affairs of Susan Boyle and Jedward, I feel he has a obligation to comment and take action in a case like this. He is very fast to comment and donate when hes on the world stage, but when it comes to his own people hes all words, no action.

[TaffTalk]

how would you prefer a general election to work then?

I dont know maybe I would like to vote for who I want in Parliament, is that a little too much to ask. Blair was voted, he balls'd up, the public have to accept they misjudged their mistake. However, I would now like to vote for his replacement not the bourgeois do it on my behalf.

Also, the monarchy are there to ensure that Democracy is done fairly and intervene otherwise. I'm paying to keep the Queen in her little townhouse, now she needs to do something for her subjects.

[Bun]

I dont know maybe I would like to vote for who I want in Parliament, is that a little too much to ask. Blair was voted, he balls'd up, the public have to accept they misjudged their mistake. However, I would now like to vote for his replacement not the bourgeois do it on my behalf.

Also, the monarchy are there to ensure that Democracy is done fairly and intervene otherwise. I'm paying to keep the Queen in her little townhouse, now she needs to do something for her subjects.
yeah you already do that, you know them things called Members of Parliament? you could argue that our system does need changing, maybe introduce PR (lib dems would love you forever) as FPTP has a lot of critics. maybe change the way the president prime minister is elected, become more like america and their oh-so-great democracy? :rolleyes: at the end of the day, whichever party has the majority in parliament and is in power isn't going to want to change the system because it got them in power anyway.

[alexxxxx]

IT IS DIFFERENT. It is provided by taxing the general public and the private sector and is then given to the government, which in turn it pays its people with that money. Higher taxes - OF COURSE! - because like all other socialists you want more and more, utter greed for something you can't have. In the past you have mentioned poor and rich, well heres one for you alex; families are taxed to the hilt in this country, do not tax them anymore. Why should somebody who has worked well, earned their place, be taxed more and more for their success? - it is like in schools, if you give bad kids trips out and not the good kids, you are rewarding failure and not success, which in turn makes the good kids think 'well why bother??'.

It isn't different in an economic sense. Higher taxes are not an issue if the money paid leads to an output by the council demanded by taxpayers. When Marginal Spending =/= Determined Marginal Output , that's when you have an issue and that's when you stop spending in that area.



Government loses money, its well very well you writing that all out but it does not work. Why do you ignore history alex? - perhaps it is not me who needs the lesson you speak of because what you are proposing has been proposed throughout history and implemented, and the results were truly horrific.

Have you never heard of a budget surplus?


You are a socialist and you do not believe in free markets, you support the European Union [not a free market] and say if we left it would leave dire economic consquences for us as we would of left the market [not free market] and finally you want public ownership of firms [not free market]. NONE of that is free market alex, free market is without government interferring, free market is without organisations such as the European Union playing trade-bloc wars with other nations around the world.

You don't know what a free market is. You've already shown this in earlier posts. I believe that government shouldn't come to me and say i can't import something from somewhere because there is no agreement with that country to do so. If say, washing machines were £500 here but only €300 in Belgium, why should I have to pay import tax on it? Why should I have to pay import tax on stuff I buy from outside the EU? It's not a free market that's why.


The wealth trickling down argument does work alex, history shows that. Go and look at the 1980s, yes the gap grew between rich and poor but the poor were better off and the rich became richer also. Your argument is exactly what she said, you would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.

If the wealth should trickle down, why doesn't everyone's income rise at the same rate? It's because it doesn't work that's why. Economic goals are to improve life for everyone not the select few.


You only prefer to distance yourself from socialism because you know deep down that nobody would take you seriously if you openly stated you were a socialist. Afterall, whoever in the history of the world voted for their families business to be taken off them, whoever voted for bigger government, more government interferance and higher taxes? - nobody ever did.

Western Europe has free markets alex although these are being depleted by the European Union. Have you not heard of North Korea, USSR, China under Mao, Cambodia and Britain in the 1970s alex? - have you really not?. There is your fantastic socialism for you.

According to your logic though, almost everywhere in europe is socialist now and they hate democracy. I'm not a socialist.



No, its very simple. I have stated that with the waste our current government makes all the time, we could easily afford to keep this care home running, especially when it will have a long future as the population is ageing. On the theory, yes of course it does. However we are in 2010 now alex, and a 106 woman cannot go out and get a job and bankroll her own retirement. It must start with education, that is where you can teach sensible economics and can alert people to the fact that if they save and be conservative with their money, they can be well off in their old age and not have to rely on the state.

Do you study economics at any level?

I don't despise anyone for their beliefs, I despise them for their actions. Another difference between us it seems.

Yeah but why should we spend money on her in particular? It's like your argument is, let's not waste money here on things i don't agree on and waste it here instead. That local area already has ample care homes and are under pressure to cut costs. You are making excuses already for right-wing problems , showing that there are major issues with the system.


Sorry but where have I said it should be banned? - oh you mean UKIP have stated it that they want it banned, well i'm sorry for not following my party blindly and having my own views and opinions alex. On the second part, sorry alex but history has shown and it is something you continue to blindly ignore. The invididual needs to be free from government, government has no place at home and no place in business. If you lose your job you rely on the state, not society.

So why should the issue of burkas go to a referendum, surely the freedom of the individual comes before laws of the state?


I don't know where you pick this stuff up alex, either from College or reading socialist mainfestos or something or other, but it'd do you a great deal to go and actually read on the failures of socialism and more so, history in general.
lmao i have read the swp and other people's websites and what they want is ridiculous, plus most socialists are purely wums. I don't agree with them because eventually it makes everyone poorer.

[KyleSmith]

Its sad :(

BTW I live around the corner from there :D

[-:Undertaker:-]

It isn't different in an economic sense. Higher taxes are not an issue if the money paid leads to an output by the council demanded by taxpayers. When Marginal Spending =/= Determined Marginal Output , that's when you have an issue and that's when you stop spending in that area. It does, because it deprives the private sector which is the most successful sector and the sector which provides growth, thirsty for cash. Socialism has shown this alex, what you are proposing is socialism - it has been tried, tested and the result was a fail.


Have you never heard of a budget surplus?Yeah I have, and we don't have surpluses in this country. If we did have surpluses, I would bring taxes right down as far as I could so people could spend their money how they want and not how the government wants.


You don't know what a free market is. You've already shown this in earlier posts. I believe that government shouldn't come to me and say i can't import something from somewhere because there is no agreement with that country to do so. If say, washing machines were £500 here but only €300 in Belgium, why should I have to pay import tax on it? Why should I have to pay import tax on stuff I buy from outside the EU? It's not a free market that's why.The European Union is not a free market, the European Union tells you what you can and cannot buy, what can be imported, what farmers can grow on their fields, where they can sell it. That is not free market, if it was such a free market as you claim, why are numerous French and German politicians aka EU officals claiming we need to put a stop to anglo-american capitalism if they themselves exercise it?


If the wealth should trickle down, why doesn't everyone's income rise at the same rate? It's because it doesn't work that's why. Economic goals are to improve life for everyone not the select few.Due to the fact higher wages flucuate based on profit, and the fact that the higher up you are, the higher your wages jump based on how shares and so on are doing. Yeah they are, but prosperity is not a right, it is a goal - a goal which can and should only be achieved by those who made their money.

My Dad achieves his economic goals, whereas say somebody whos on benefits on a council estate doesn't because quite simply either they cannot be bothered or didn't listen in school, both which are the foundations of laziness. Why should somebody like that have the same 'economic goal' as my father and numerous other hard working successful people in this country?


According to your logic though, almost everywhere in europe is socialist now and they hate democracy. I'm not a socialist.The European Union is socialist yes, and it has many former communists working for it in the higher ranks. Nobody has voted on this European Union because; a) nobody wants it hence why we aren't being given a say on it & b) you refuse to accept that the people should have a say on it.

You are a socialist, everything you say is socialist. You may not like to admit it, but you are socialist. Your ideas and thoughts are socialist. You don't like to admit this because you know nobody could possibly take you seriously if you admitted this;- the examples I have given of failed socialism time and time again are indefendable, it failed.


Yeah but why should we spend money on her in particular? It's like your argument is, let's not waste money here on things i don't agree on and waste it here instead. That local area already has ample care homes and are under pressure to cut costs. You are making excuses already for right-wing problems , showing that there are major issues with the system.I have said it very clearly what I mean and I will say it again; while our government spends millions on the unelected, undemocratic EU everyday, while our government funds pointless jobsworths who come from the Guardian everyday, while our government gives billions to other countries then there is no reason why we are firstly in debt, and secondly why this carehome should be closed down.


So why should the issue of burkas go to a referendum, surely the freedom of the individual comes before laws of the state?Of course they do, but the fact of the matter is that other garments such as motorcyle helmets are also banned inside places such as banks and airports, so why should burkas be an exception. UKIP are not proposing a total ban and I wouldn't agree with that anyway, they are simply proposing that burkas be banned in places such as banks and airports, just as helmets and other attire are.


lmao i have read the swp and other people's websites and what they want is ridiculous, plus most socialists are purely wums. I don't agree with them because eventually it makes everyone poorer...so why on earth do you repeat what they are saying but in a more trendy/non-left wing fashion. Just like New Labour and Old Labour - totally the same thing, just with a lot of spin involved.

[alexxxxx]

It does, because it deprives the private sector which is the most successful sector and the sector which provides growth, thirsty for cash. Socialism has shown this alex, what you are proposing is socialism - it has been tried, tested and the result was a fail.

you clearly don't understand.


Yeah I have, and we don't have surpluses in this country. If we did have surpluses, I would bring taxes right down as far as I could so people could spend their money how they want and not how the government wants.

but some of those god-awful 'socialist' (used in the lightest sense of the word), states do. oh ok. look at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html and you can see that there are a number of european 'socialist' nations have positive accounts whilst us have a negative balance. Granted, we are not as bad as France or Spain and we are alot better off than the USA.


The European Union is not a free market, the European Union tells you what you can and cannot buy, what can be imported, what farmers can grow on their fields, where they can sell it. That is not free market, if it was such a free market as you claim, why are numerous French and German politicians aka EU officals claiming we need to put a stop to anglo-american capitalism if they themselves exercise it?

It's a common market between all member states, mainly free, apart from the farming/food sector. Like I said, it doesn't make sense efficiency wise to be producing things at a higher cost here when they can be imported for less from the rest of the EU.


Due to the fact higher wages flucuate based on profit, and the fact that the higher up you are, the higher your wages jump based on how shares and so on are doing. Yeah they are, but prosperity is not a right, it is a goal - a goal which can and should only be achieved by those who made their money.

Have you any reason to believe that higher wages come from higher profit? Higher wages only occur when a shortage of quality labour. We aren't even in a perfect labour market so large companies in relatively small locations have a large say in how much they pay their workers, it's called a monopsony.



My Dad achieves his economic goals, whereas say somebody whos on benefits on a council estate doesn't because quite simply either they cannot be bothered or didn't listen in school, both which are the foundations of laziness. Why should somebody like that have the same 'economic goal' as my father and numerous other hard working successful people in this country?

An 'economic goal' is a goal set by a government, not an individual. :rolleyes:



The European Union is socialist yes, and it has many former communists working for it in the higher ranks. Nobody has voted on this European Union because; a) nobody wants it hence why we aren't being given a say on it & b) you refuse to accept that the people should have a say on it.

You are a socialist, everything you say is socialist. You may not like to admit it, but you are socialist. Your ideas and thoughts are socialist. You don't like to admit this because you know nobody could possibly take you seriously if you admitted this;- the examples I have given of failed socialism time and time again are indefendable, it failed.

Socialists hate globalisation and free trade as it destroys their inability to keep their own isolated markets running if they're completely inefficient. Why do some industries leave this country? It's because they cannot be as efficient as elsewhere. That's why after joining the common market, as you said, orchards closed down. I applaud the closing down of such industries and investing and specialising in certain sectors. We have sort of done this with the banking sector. likewise i've given you examples of working 'socialism' (which it isn't really) and you turn your head!


I have said it very clearly what I mean and I will say it again; while our government spends millions on the unelected, undemocratic EU everyday, while our government funds pointless jobsworths who come from the Guardian everyday, while our government gives billions to other countries then there is no reason why we are firstly in debt, and secondly why this carehome should be closed down.

those same jobs that are advertised in the telegraph. (Y) because the carehome is inefficient.


Of course they do, but the fact of the matter is that other garments such as motorcyle helmets are also banned inside places such as banks and airports, so why should burkas be an exception. UKIP are not proposing a total ban and I wouldn't agree with that anyway, they are simply proposing that burkas be banned in places such as banks and airports, just as helmets and other attire are.

Surely it's up to the bank and airport operator to decide, not the government?



..so why on earth do you repeat what they are saying but in a more trendy/non-left wing fashion. Just like New Labour and Old Labour - totally the same thing, just with a lot of spin involved.
:eusa_wall

[-:Undertaker:-]

you clearly don't understand.

I do, its you who ignores history.


but some of those god-awful 'socialist' (used in the lightest sense of the word), states do. oh ok. look at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html and you can see that there are a number of european 'socialist' nations have positive accounts whilst us have a negative balance. Granted, we are not as bad as France or Spain and we are alot better off than the USA.

That has nothing to do with capitalism/socialism, Chinas economy is one of the most capitalist economies on the earth by some aspects. Russia is also a massively capitalist economy and is on there because of its gas reserves, same with Saudi Arabia for its oil fields and Germany for its heavy industry.


It's a common market between all member states, mainly free, apart from the farming/food sector. Like I said, it doesn't make sense efficiency wise to be producing things at a higher cost here when they can be imported for less from the rest of the EU.

That is not free market then 'between member states' so basically it is the same as a protectionist treaty between a group of countries. On the rest of the EU, it doesn't make sense to be importing from the EU when we can buy things cheaper from the rest of the world.


Have you any reason to believe that higher wages come from higher profit? Higher wages only occur when a shortage of quality labour. We aren't even in a perfect labour market so large companies in relatively small locations have a large say in how much they pay their workers, it's called a monopsony.

Yes, the more successful a company is the more loose with money. As shown by Christmas bonuses this year or last year when times are rough bonuses do not come, when they are not tough firms can take on more people, can give more generous job payouts and bonuses.


An 'economic goal' is a goal set by a government, not an individual. :rolleyes:

It depends what you are talking about, are we talking nationally or the man on the street. An economic goal by a government is rarely ever scored, as shown by this government when we are going to be one of the last to leave the recession.


Socialists hate globalisation and free trade as it destroys their inability to keep their own isolated markets running if they're completely inefficient. Why do some industries leave this country? It's because they cannot be as efficient as elsewhere. That's why after joining the common market, as you said, orchards closed down. I applaud the closing down of such industries and investing and specialising in certain sectors. We have sort of done this with the banking sector. likewise i've given you examples of working 'socialism' (which it isn't really) and you turn your head!

Hang on, haven't in the past you been one of those who criticised Thatcher for closing the bankrupt mines? - you also 'applaud' the banking sector yet have called for our anglo-american values to be shunned (as the EU wants to do) which make our economy so successful because it is so free.


those same jobs that are advertised in the telegraph. (Y) because the carehome is inefficient.

They are more common by far in the Guardian, thats how the Guardian runs alex, because unlike most other papers it struggles to sell because its left-wing. It relys on government money to survive. The Telegraph will also most likely have government jobs which are of no use what so ever to us, and the government should stop wasting our money now on the public sector.

I read something like 6 million people now work for the public sector, thats an increase of 1 million under this government - aka the unemployment level at the moment should have 1 million added to it. Thats how Labour get votes though, let them nasty tories in and they will cut your cushy jobs on stupendous wages which offer nothing to this country!


Surely it's up to the bank and airport operator to decide, not the government?

Are a bank/airport really going to suggest banning burkas? - we know what its like, Michael Howard was labelled racist by Labour in 2005 when he merely suggested controls and a cap be placed on immigration.