Which political view is best for Britain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuketheDuke

British troops were sent into Iraq under false pretences, some have died for the lies fed to them and for what? Oil reserves.

Capitalism can manifest greed and we see that everyday. Crime caused by money, social hireachy determined by how big your wallet is, happiness seems to ride on the thing.

Its wrong to say socialism as an ideal is a bad thing as it isnt, people twist such a thing and make it something it isnt. The same happens with Capitalism and people have made that point clearly so its naive to dismiss it completely.

---

Social hierarchy exists under and system, infact under a capitalist system it is more equal and spread out as in a socialist country you have everyone poor, with the few at the top having the power and the money. In a capitalist country you have the majority well off and able to live a comfortable life with luxaries and a decent house and most of all; the vast majority of people have bread on the table when they arrive home.

Socialism hasn't been twisted at all into something it isn't, we can all see it failed and always has failed at every chance its been given.

In a capitalist system if you have a brain, work hard - the chances are you will better yourself off compared to someone who is lazy and would rather sit about all day living off the state - that is as fair as it can get whereas in a socialist country, it doesn't reward hard work at all. Why would you train to be a doctor to recieve a equal life standard to someone who is a dustman? - you wouldn't.

We all agree the Iraqi invasion was wrong and also that capitalism isn't perfect. I can also concede that communism is a very good ideology, but sadly humans have things like "aspirations" where they want to be better than the rest, not to be equal.

In socialist countries you have poverty on a whole new level to that of a capitalist society, in China and North Korea you have people dying of starvation and same goes for Russia because of it's Soviet days. You may get the elderly struggling to pay bills in this country but we don't have millions of entire families starving.

The only reason you get less crime in socialist countries is because they've got brutal punishments throughout, in China there's about 80 things which warrant the death sentence if I remember correctly. Crime exists no matter what the economic scale, it's the punishments which stop the crime. For example in Saudi Arabia, a capitalist country, for robbery you'd get your hand chopped off, the robbery rates in Saudi Arabia are minuscule as a result. I'm not saying we should implement such strong punishments, the point is that crime does not depend on the economic system and crime exists because humans "aspire" to be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

I'm rather confused by the poll.

Capitalism & Socialism are pretty much economic systems meanwhile Communism & Democracy are forms of government to an extent.

No brainer really, Capitalism is the only system which works, it's not perfect but there's nothing which is anywhere near as good. Democracy obviously works well as it's served the West very well for centuries and Communism is clearly a failure, just look at the Soviet Union.

---

Totally agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

They have, the purges it had against so called 'enemies of the state' and the poverty caused by socialism. Socialism may say it is that but it is not, as Thatcher said; there is no such thing as society. If you lose your home, who do you rely on? - the state. If you need welfare who do you rely on? - the state.

---

This never happened, unless your confusing the so called communist (a totally different system) in russia? Which never even came close to communism in its correct form?
I think being a dicatorship was the issue with that, same with with the Natzis?

I'm also guessing you choose to ignore the part where after communism ended and russia and its former parts became capitalist about the 100s or millions of old folks whos died as the state was no longer looking after them. Left to die on the streets - capitalism sure never killed anyone o.0

Quote:

---

It has not, hardly any country is ever fully capitalist, there is always aid/welfare in capitalist countrys at various levels. Those who died in the gulags, died trying to cross the Berlin Wall and so on died to try and get into a capitalist society.

---

From Germany - about as far from a socialist country as is imaginable?. Britain, we were the socialists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mentor

This never happened, unless your confusing the so called communist (a totally different system) in russia? Which never even came close to communism in its correct form?
I think being a dicatorship was the issue with that, same with with the Natzis?

I'm also guessing you choose to ignore the part where after communism ended and russia and its former parts became capitalist about the 100s or millions of old folks whos died as the state was no longer looking after them. Left to die on the streets - capitalism sure never killed anyone o.0


From Germany - about as far from a socialist country as is imaginable?. Britain, we were the socialists?

---

Oh come on you know what he meant. West germany was very capitalist, as is the current germany. East germany however was very socialist as it was run by the Soviet Union. The UK was very close to becoming a socialist state in the 1970s also.

As for all these people dying after communism, it just proves that even capitalism can't do enough to correct the socialism. The Soviet Union was communist for 80 years, the nations were completely crippled and bankrupt, Capitalism can't just sort it all immediately and make everything jolly.

Just shows the devastation of socialism can't be easily sorted ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mentor

This never happened, unless your confusing the so called communist (a totally different system) in russia? Which never even came close to communism in its correct form?
I think being a dicatorship was the issue with that, same with with the Natzis?

I'm also guessing you choose to ignore the part where after communism ended and russia and its former parts became capitalist about the 100s or millions of old folks whos died as the state was no longer looking after them. Left to die on the streets - capitalism sure never killed anyone o.0


From Germany - about as far from a socialist country as is imaginable?. Britain, we were the socialists?

---

The Soivet Union was socialist, socialism and communism are basically the same system. There is no correct form of socialism/communism, it doesn't allow other partys/capitalist ideas/business to set up to therefore it is a dictatorship. There have been so many countrys that have tried socialism and it has failed every time, in one way it does what its supposed to do by making everyone poor and hungry, so I guess you could say everyone did end up equal under socialism, poor or dead.

Where are all these mass starvations/deaths then when communism collapsed across the east? - we've never heard of them and as far as I know they certainly didn't happen, life has never been better in the east and was only held back because of socialism - how else do you explain the difference that was from western europe and eastern europe?

Infact even today West Germany is still having to subsidise East Germany because of the mess socialism made on that part of the country, and they predict that if socialism in North Korea collapses and Korea is once again united, the South will have near-economic collapse because of the investment it will have to pump into North Korea.

As for the facist Third Reich, facism is a mix of both socialism and capitalism. Britain before the end of world war two was very capitalist, after world war two nearly everything was nationalised and post-war decline set in which saw the Empire fall apart and this country fall behind others, from a world power to a weak power - until the 1980s when capitalism saved us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The Soivet Union was socialist, socialism and communism are basically the same system. There is no correct form of socialism/communism, it doesn't allow other partys/capitalist ideas/business to set up to therefore it is a dictatorship. There have been so many countrys that have tried socialism and it has failed every time, in one way it does what its supposed to do by making everyone poor and hungry, so I guess you could say everyone did end up equal under socialism, poor or dead.

Where are all these mass starvations/deaths then when communism collapsed across the east? - we've never heard of them and as far as I know they certainly didn't happen, life has never been better in the east and was only held back because of socialism - how else do you explain the difference that was from western europe and eastern europe?

Infact even today West Germany is still having to subsidise East Germany because of the mess socialism made on that part of the country, and they predict that if socialism in North Korea collapses and Korea is once again united, the South will have near-economic collapse because of the investment it will have to pump into North Korea.

As for the facist Third Reich, facism is a mix of both socialism and capitalism. Britain before the end of world war two was very capitalist, after world war two nearly everything was nationalised and post-war decline set in which saw the Empire fall apart and this country fall behind others, from a world power to a weak power - until the 1980s when capitalism saved us.

---

To say they are basically the same thing is incredibly ignorant. I'm a socialist and i strongly disagree with the extremes of communism. And btw it's spelled fascist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jippz

To say they are basically the same thing is incredibly ignorant. I'm a socialist and i strongly disagree with the extremes of communism. And btw it's spelled fascist.

---

Well the only real examples of socialism are in the form of communist governments, all of which are failures. Although socialism has never truly been tried in a real democracy, logic dictates that because it's never been a success in the past so it's not worth trying out.

Britain in the 70s was close to socialism and I hardly need to point out how badly the country was doing then, going to the IMF, being controlled by unions, continual strikes and virtually bankrupt while all decent businesses were moving abroad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jippz

To say they are basically the same thing is incredibly ignorant. I'm a socialist and i strongly disagree with the extremes of communism. And btw it's spelled fascist.

---

The nations we called communist were actually socialist, North Korea has socialist in it formal name, the USSR means Union of Soviet Socialist Republics so no, its not incredibly ignorant at all. The forms of socialism and communismk are practically the same so much so that I cant even think of a significant difference between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Well the only real examples of socialism are in the form of communist governments, all of which are failures. Although socialism has never truly been tried in a real democracy, logic dictates that because it's never been a success in the past so it's not worth trying out.

Britain in the 70s was close to socialism and I hardly need to point out how badly the country was doing then, going to the IMF, being controlled by unions, continual strikes and virtually bankrupt while all decent businesses were moving abroad.

---

According to the socialists on here we should try it again, however when there are nationwide blackouts, food shortages and general decay, not to mentioning their pranets businesses/shops being nationalised and taken away by the government - they'd soon be singing a different tune.

Socialism is pure greed, the idea that because you cant/havent got something like your own business, no one else should have either - so arrogant.

The most common argument i've come across for capitalism is that whilst socialism looks good on paper there are too many money-hungry people in the world. However you seem to be one of those arrogant people who actually would rather poor people die than rich people have to settle for merely living.

Well i don't think this is really going to work because it's all a matter of opinon if we could all agree on one then there would be no need for a debate? You have also missed out so many ways of running a country on there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jippz

The most common argument i've come across for capitalism is that whilst socialism looks good on paper there are too many money-hungry people in the world. However you seem to be one of those arrogant people who actually would rather poor people die than rich people have to settle for merely living.

---

All you have to say is that, despite numerous examples of how people in socialist countrys are actually worse off than those in capitalist countrys?

I am not saying that it has worked, i'm saying that if we were lead by people who were socialist for just reasons then it could work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jippz

I am not saying that it has worked, i'm saying that if we were lead by people who were socialist for just reasons then it could work.

---

..however thats against human nature, we, as humans, always want to better ourselves. Nobody would train to be a doctor, paying for university, spending hours upon hours studying only at the end of it, to gain a job which has the same salary as a binman and to live in a house just as good as a binmans house is.

In conclusion of that, its pointless even considering or supporting socialism as it can never ever work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jippz

I am not saying that it has worked, i'm saying that if we were lead by people who were socialist for just reasons then it could work.

---

History suggests socialism is a complete failure though, there's no reason at all to believe it could work. One of my favourite ever quotes has to be... "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

We're coming up with historical events showing socialism doesn't work, your posts are entirely based on an ideology which is the first step to debating politics but you need to know the history as evidence to persuade others.

if guys think socialism sucks then take a good look at where capitalisms got us.

No system is perfect - Loads of countries have a mixture of different systems, usually a mix of capitalism and socialism = Britain. The NHS would not exist in a capitalist frame, because it goes against many capitalist beliefs - the NHS is free healthcare for all citizens of the nation - "free" being the keyword. Same with the law, the law revolves around everyone being treated as equals - in a capitalist state, it could be solved just by paying your way through breaking laws which only exists in America (to an extent).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuketheDuke

if guys think socialism sucks then take a good look at where capitalisms got us.

---

I don't see people starving in the UK? I'd rather live in a capitalist society than any other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuketheDuke

if guys think socialism sucks then take a good look at where capitalisms got us.

---

Where has it got us?

Lets think, medicines, technogly, democracy - EVERYTHING has developed thanks to the economic miracle that capitalism is. Do you have a house?, are members of your family employed by private business?, do any of your family own private business?, do your family vote? - if the answer is yes to any one of those questions, its built your life which is far better than those poor souls trapped in the socialist cycle of dictatorship, poverty and death.

Why can you not look at the economics?

Compare;

South Korea to North Korea
United States to Soviet Union
United Kingdom (1970s) to United Kingdom (1980s+)

..now come back and tell me which one sucks.

socialism =/= communism.

I cba to read the whole thread, only just come back from holiday.

Most countries in Europe, UK included are socialists, to lesser or greater extents. Go to the USA and see one of the most truely capitalist countries on the planet to find that they spend the most on healthcare, yet recieve relatively average treatment, find that some cities have near 3rd-world unemployment levels (see New Orleans), that the poor are desperately poor and that the rich live in another world. Then also see the crime that comes with it. That's what happens in a system like that.

The "best" way in my opinion is the way that many of our european neighbours use, a capitalist free market with PR, with good workers' rights and emphasis on improving productivity in the economy, even if this means large investment by the government in transport, health. Some may say that large scale spending by the governement is expensive, but also the governement are more accountable to the public than private business. Health care, for example, is relatively inexpensive compared to the US, yet we have better care and we live longer on average. Trains, we pay the most in Europe, yet get the worst service, look at Switzerland, public ownership over much of the railways and much better services. Using market mechanisms can work in the service sector. Look at the French road system. The Autoroutes are operated and maintained by private companies (not sure if owned, but maybe) and they are in good service. Our road system isn't too bad, but could be improved.

Outright either way doesn't work, you have to use a mixture so you get the best of both.

hum if you know anything about the USSR then it was a Communist State which had a Communist constitution. it was manipulated by leaders like Stalin to make people believe it was a socialist society which gave people the inclination to think they were politically empowered. Socialism is different to the ideology of Communism as it doesnt rest its principles on one leader and your struggling to understand that Undertaker.

As for your vendetta against Labour you also dont look at circumstances, for instance the post war economic decline which no one identified with until Callaghan realised action needed to be taken. Events shape PMs and their governments, if Callaghan dealt with the Falklands War Im sure hed have a much better write up.

And yes Capitalism does suck, look at big business' and how they exploit people, look at how the banks have shrunk our economy, 4 million children live in poverty in the UK. Just because your well off it doesnt mean that makes the system ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuketheDuke

hum if you know anything about the USSR then it was a Communist State which had a Communist constitution. it was manipulated by leaders like Stalin to make people believe it was a socialist society which gave people the inclination to think they were politically empowered. Socialism is different to the ideology of Communism as it doesnt rest its principles on one leader and your struggling to understand that Undertaker.

As for your vendetta against Labour you also dont look at circumstances, for instance the post war economic decline which no one identified with until Callaghan realised action needed to be taken. Events shape PMs and their governments, if Callaghan dealt with the Falklands War Im sure hed have a much better write up.

And yes Capitalism does suck, look at big business' and how they exploit people, look at how the banks have shrunk our economy, 4 million children live in poverty in the UK. Just because your well off it doesnt mean that makes the system ok.

---

4 million children in poverty indeed, Labour have been in government for over 10 years and they still haven't sorted it, yet they're far more socialist than the conservative party? Good work Labour :rolleyes:

Poverty in the UK is in relation to how much people earn, if the majority of the UK earned a massive £250 an hour, then the people earning £100 would be in 'Poverty'. It is therefore impossible to eradicate what we think of poverty in the UK, it will always be there.

Poverty in China, The Soviet Union and North Korea is a completely different story however, that's poverty as in people starving and dying of easily curable things because their hospitals lack resources.

+rep alexxxx for that post btw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuketheDuke

hum if you know anything about the USSR then it was a Communist State which had a Communist constitution. it was manipulated by leaders like Stalin to make people believe it was a socialist society which gave people the inclination to think they were politically empowered. Socialism is different to the ideology of Communism as it doesnt rest its principles on one leader and your struggling to understand that Undertaker.

As for your vendetta against Labour you also dont look at circumstances, for instance the post war economic decline which no one identified with until Callaghan realised action needed to be taken. Events shape PMs and their governments, if Callaghan dealt with the Falklands War Im sure hed have a much better write up.

And yes Capitalism does suck, look at big business' and how they exploit people, look at how the banks have shrunk our economy, 4 million children live in poverty in the UK. Just because your well off it doesnt mean that makes the system ok.

---

No, it was SOCIALIST. You cant keep dodging the failures of the world - they were socialist. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is not different to communism, they are the same. Communism was not supposed to rest of the principles of one person, hence why the Tsar was so hated by the communists.

You are wrong yet again, have you ever heard of James Callaghans famous quote which was summed up into "crisis?, what crisis!?" when the winter of discontent was mouting up. Here are his exact words "I don't think other people in the world would share the view [that] there is mounting chaos" - words of a total idiot. As for the Falklands, by that time their most likely wouldn't of been a government, the military was reported to of been thinking of a coup as the crisis was that bad. The unions would never of allowed the United Kingdom to go and retain the islands as socialism hates imperialism.

Why have Labour not sorted this out?
As for the issue, they all get fed. That is not real poverty, the point is that they get fed and clothed, life isn't perfect for anyone but i'm sure they would rather live in this country and be fed than to have the conditions people are suffering right now in North Korea.

You haven't answered my questions on the prevous pages, or compared what I asked you to compare; so I ask you to go back and answer them, and compare those situations.

You are so lucky to live in a free capitalist society, in the words of Margaret Thatcher yet again which you do not seem to be able to reply to; "would you rather the poor be poorer?"

a lot of these counter arguments seem to be assumptions and personal inclination towards certain ideas. Im not a labour supporter or a socialist but I hate when people say Socialism doesnt work. The matter of the fact is a Communist Party tried to create a Socialist society in Russia and it led to them corrupting democracy and warring with the social elite who constantly undermined them. In Britain we had a government with Socialist ideas but events conspired against them and they rightly failed, Thatcher is not the 2nd coming of Christ just someone who fell on good economic fortune, much like Tony Blair when he came into office but as long as people have money they'll happily act like sheep.


Which leads me onto the Child Poverty which the above two posters seemed to mock, if Britain is much greater than the countries which you have mocked than why do we have the highest child poverty rates in the modern industrial world?

My point is people are quick to lament socialism for all its apparant ills but Capitalism isnt perfect by a long stretch either. I havent called anybody an "idiot" and by all means I know that socialism is an easily corruptable system but play devils advocate and its counterpart isnt a whole lot better.

and btw Id rather have a job than get "poorer". also this threads a bit long in the tooth now so thats my two cence on this one, il leave most people to disagree with me on another post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuketheDuke

a lot of these counter arguments seem to be assumptions and personal inclination towards certain ideas. Im not a labour supporter or a socialist but I hate when people say Socialism doesnt work. The matter of the fact is a Communist Party tried to create a Socialist society in Russia and it led to them corrupting democracy and warring with the social elite who constantly undermined them. In Britain we had a government with Socialist ideas but events conspired against them and they rightly failed, Thatcher is not the 2nd coming of Christ just someone who fell on good economic fortune, much like Tony Blair when he came into office but as long as people have money they'll happily act like sheep.

Which leads me onto the Child Poverty which the above two posters seemed to mock, if Britain is much greater than the countries which you have mocked than why do we have the highest child poverty rates in the modern industrial world?

My point is people are quick to lament socialism for all its apparant ills but Capitalism isnt perfect by a long stretch either. I havent called anybody an "idiot" and by all means I know that socialism is an easily corruptable system but play devils advocate and its counterpart isnt a whole lot better.

and btw Id rather have a job than get "poorer". also this threads a bit long in the tooth now so thats my two cence on this one, il leave most people to disagree with me on another post.

---

You have no idea or concept of history then, you dismiss all the examples me and Jordy have given and proved of how socialism has failed time and time again. If the USSR was communist and if socialism was totally different, why would they call themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - because they were socialist.

Thatcher is the second coming of chris in British twenty century politics, Churchill saved us from facism and she saved us from socialism. Tony Blair only inherited her economic legacy.

Britain has a high poverty rate because of the jump that had to be made in the 1980s to move all classes of people top higher standards of living. The second point is that a lot of these people prefer to stay on the welfare system and do not see the point in working and improving their familys conditions when the state pays for it. That is why the welfare system needs to be sorted out - something which Labour has failed to fix.

We have all agreed that capitalism isn't perfect, the point we are making and what we have proved time and time again is that capitalism is a thousand times better than socialism. I never said you called anybody an idiot, I was calling James Callgahan an idiot and you haven't replied to my points about him either.

You would rather have a job yes, and good because that shows you are taking advantage of the capitalist conservative society we live in. The people of the Soviet Union also wanted to work and the people in 1970s United Kingdom wanted to work, hence why they threw the shackles of socialism off.

quick reply to Undertakers post.

Please stop insulting me with all this "you have no sense of blah blah" just because I disagree with you, it really isnt pleasant and we're all entitled to our own opinions. Suprisingly what I think is just as valid as what you think.

Look up the USSR and look what the sole political party was that governed it. Also look up what Gulags are.

Everything else in your post I dont understand as Im not even sure how your linking this stuff together, I get how you like Thatcher but Im pretty sure social development has continued since 1990 so please stop contributing stuff to that lady.

Jobs are jobs, what on earth has that got to do with political systems. If there were no jobs thatd be a Bill and Ted society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuketheDuke

quick reply to Undertakers post.

Please stop insulting me with all this "you have no sense of blah blah" just because I disagree with you, it really isnt pleasant and we're all entitled to our own opinions. Suprisingly what I think is just as valid as what you think.

Look up the USSR and look what the sole political party was that governed it. Also look up what Gulags are.

Everything else in your post I dont understand as Im not even sure how your linking this stuff together, I get how you like Thatcher but Im pretty sure social development has continued since 1990 so please stop contributing stuff to that lady.

Jobs are jobs, what on earth has that got to do with political systems. If there were no jobs thatd be a Bill and Ted society.

---

You refuse to reply properly to my points, which points to the fact you dont seem to understand the topic fully. I do know what gulags are, and the fact that the Communist Party ruled the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics just proves my point more so, that socialism and communism are the same.

It all stems back to the 1980s my friend, without the reforms she brought in the country would not of been able to afford anything right now just like we couldnt just before she got in, why we had to appeal to the IMF. That is why the 1970s/1980s+ discussion is vital to this topic, because it was a fight between capitalism and socialism, of which capitalism won.

Jobs have everything to do with political systems, whether you work for the state (socialism) and the state owns all business and private enterprise (socialism) or whether you can set up your own business (capitalism) and create jobs through profit (capitalism).

Nah I read stuff like this which tells me that they're different.

http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

And that loan from the IMF helped Britain whether it was bad or not from your point of view. Like the transition from Major to Blair, the economy wasnt in a bad of a state as some people would think.

A jobs a job, you work and you get paid.

You have just linked me to one of the most biased sites you could possibly of linked me to, of course socialists now dont want anything to do with the former Soviet Union because if they used the USSR as an example of socialism then everyone would just laugh at them, not that they dont anyway.

We got to the stage where we had to loan from the IMF, do you realise how bad that is? - loaning from the IMF is basically the net which stops a country collapsing fully, we were bankrupt.

You ignored my point on the jobs in the last post, its a vital part of capitalism against socialism.

lol wat. that article is explaining what the differences are in an in depth manner. It isnt concerned with bias against this or that just an informative article from people who've actually read the Communist Manifesto.

And your saying I ignore things!:eusa_danc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuketheDuke

lol wat. that article is explaining what the differences are in an in depth manner. It isnt concerned with bias against this or that just an informative article from people who've actually read the Communist Manifesto.

And your saying I ignore things!:eusa_danc

---

The article is from a marxist view, its like a pro-EU site could explain the European Union in full depth - doesn't mean anything it says is truthful. The only real difference that article points out is how the stage of capitalism should be moved away from, the article is complete tripe as I would expect from a Marxist article/site.

The article is rubbish, infact it even states that the two are basically the same on the full transition to communism; "Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."

If you do not think they are anywhere near the same, why then did the Communist Party rule the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and not the Union of Soviet Communist Republics?

as for those talking about poverty, i haven't had personal experience, though I see those from the poorer areas of town and you can tell they obviously don't eat right or enough, the housing is dreadful and it looks very difficult to better themselves. a sort of social-poverty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

as for those talking about poverty, i haven't had personal experience, though I see those from the poorer areas of town and you can tell they obviously don't eat right or enough, the housing is dreadful and it looks very difficult to better themselves. a sort of social-poverty.

---

Those areas (I know type you mean) tend to be post-war housing, the new towns which were built in the 1950s/1960s and have failed basically and damaged larger cities such as Liverpool as populations were taken away from the inner city. I think with areas like those they need investment which can be taken away from other areas (burocrats, European Union - anything really.. there loads of areas where funding could be diverted to areas such as these) and work with local business to grow there.

It is a shame they were ever built really, many victorian houses which could of been returned to former grandeour were destroyed leaving brownfield sites in citys across the United Kingdom. Liverpool is going to continue to suffer for decades to come as other cities populations keep rising, Liverpools is expected to stay the same until the 2030s all because of those new towns.

It can be difficult to better yourself when in a situation like that, but it all comes down to getting out there and doing it, especially when it comes down to financial management because debts are often what hold the ones who want to work back.

um im confussed ll