Monarchy or Republic

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think you misunderstood what I said. The EU ensures free trade. Asia are currently trying to setup a common maket too. The NAFTA ensures free trade too between the USA and Canada. The EEA is our largest trading partner, leaving this union doesn't guarabtee our competition in it.


Yeah, it's called the EEA. EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA. :eusa_wall The people I have met when doing my european exchanges with people in Italy, France, Germany and another time in France, none of them had unfavourable views of the EU.


The rail companies still take subsidies from the government and still charge us stupid amounts of money. We pay twice. Tax bill goes up, the money goes abroad, less money is spent in UK shops, people lose jobs and downward spiral entails. All the companies are government sponsered monopolies, which then work in cartels against us and have no wish in reinvestment into the infastructure. All the torys did in the 80s was make a few million unemployed, sell off the country's silver, encourage people to buy houses that they then couldn't subsequently afford when the interest rates went up when a failed attempt at keeping inflation low happened. Only since the recession in 1991 (under a conservative government) as the economy grown again and now we have our slump. Your parents should continue to pay for subsidies because it is vital for movement of people around the country. In my eyes it doesn't matter if they use it or not, because they have the option of using it.


Illegal immigrants get nothing. They aren't registered, they're under the radar. It's your daily mail goggles which are on again. Illegal Immigrants = Rapists/Murderes again. Most illegal immigrants keep their head down and work for little or no money and to escape poverty. I don't want illegal immigrants here as much as you do, but you see the world in such a one-dimensional way.


The UN is completely different to the EU. The UN is a council to discuss global matters. It aids governments rather than aiding people in general (apart from peacekeeping).


The USA is so big and dominant, that's why it can. The USA isn't just unpopular because of the BA, but also because of it's stupid drug wars in the 70s/80s where they placed puppet governments in the Central and Southern Americas, it's arrogance and dominance, it's public defiance of the UN. And our weak leaders get duped into letting us get stringed along so it looks like the USA has global support for its own interests abroad.


As the UKIP says, a vote for another party is a vote for the EU. I'm still not convinced it's cared enough yet, apart from the moaning, daily mail reading middle englanders.

You should respect people's negative views of the conservative party and thatcher. Hated by millions. I can understand why people don't want to be in the EU. I just disagree for reasons aforementioned. I think people are stupid if they want to leave the EEA however.

They may be trying to set up free trade, but they aren't being asked to sign away their sovereign powers to a union. As I said, maybe it is favourable to stay in the economic treaties but pull out of the union. A government needs to look at all the costs of the economic side and decide which is the cheapest solution.

Students often get caught up in green issues, unity and socialist ideas. Whether or not they agree with it, the majority of this country and europe do not want the EU.

The rail companies have cut back on un-needed services and so have other companies. It is not ideal but it is practical, and that my friend is the difference between socialism and capitalism. You call the mines silver?, you are duped by this socialist idea of Thatcher driving this country into the ground, why can you not understand that the mines and other services were making more and more of a loss as peoples needs changed to cars and other ways of transport. Liverpool was in the grip of communist in the 1980's and was a terrible city, and that is where and when we got our bad reputation from. People in Liverpool themselves, now, looking back at Derek Hatton know what a dangerous militant he was and how he ruined this city. The move by that Conservative government gave people their first and their only hope of buying a house, which in turn meant they did not have to rely as much on the state when they retired; again, it is independance for ones self. The 1991 recession was a world wide recession after years of boom caused by the Reagan and Thatcher idea of capitalism and guess what? - we didn't have to go to the IMF like we did in the 1970's under Labour when there wasn't even a recession. I think that is a pretty good achievement and how we recovered so quickly, thanks to Thatcherism. It does matter, at least now we are not paying as much as we were in the 1970's to subsidise these services and slowly they are improving as the companies get better at managing. A service which was losing money cannot and should not be continued with the use of public money, when most of the country use cars/don't use it at all. It, again, is called independance, a word which doesn't ring with socialism and never will.

Please do not lecture a Conservative supporter on selling off 'family silver', because Gordon Brown sold a huge amount of our Gold reserves (which were actually worth something and didn't make a loss) for a low price when Labour gained office. Again, Labour never works and certainly doesn't when it comes to economic policy.

I'm afraid illegal immigrants do cause crime, because a lot of them are here for the wrong reasons. They find a way of living here by using crime. Therefore they should not be here.

Yes, exactly, the UN sticks to what it is supposed to do, rather than the EU which is constantly making grabs at sovereignty, determined to gain more power.

I would rather the puppet governments in South America which were not socialist/communist than a communist revolution in South America which very nearly occured. The Soviet Union played dirty, America played dirty to combat it and eventually it won. As for the United States, again I do not support everything it has done, but a world dominated by the United States rather than the PROC is a world I would much rather live in.

The Daily Mail tells it how it is, whereas you support the EU yet the majority of your country do not, you would certainly not make a good journalist, oh wait, yes; the Guardian.



Shes hated by 'millions' because of one of these;

• They were brought up to hate her.
• They have no idea of economics.
• They are socialists/communists in belief.

That is why people hate her. I, when younger, started thinking she ruined this country when I saw and read things on the internet about her time in office, but then I realised and ignored the propaganda and read the facts; she turned a failing, bankrupt former Empire into a modern day Great Power with a bustling economy in which people could work their way up again. She made it possible for more and more people in this country to have more money to spend on holidays/goods so that it in turn generated jobs. She also aroused a sense of national pride which we had lacked since world war two.

Lets have a referendum then on our membership of the Union and not EEA, do you agree or do you genuinely want a United States of Europe?

[Blinger1]

what the hell? he's living life and having fun by dressing in the uniform of people who killed millions of people, yeah it sounds fun.:S

I don't care who is in power (it really doesn't bother me this political ********) but if I had to chose between the queen, prince charles or the two younger princes (will and harry) i'd chose either of the two kids. I am sick of the queen dressing all snobby with the gloves on and trying to read a statement that some other idiot has written for her.

[alexxxxx]

They may be trying to set up free trade, but they aren't being asked to sign away their sovereign powers to a union. As I said, maybe it is favourable to stay in the economic treaties but pull out of the union. A government needs to look at all the costs of the economic side and decide which is the cheapest solution.

Students often get caught up in green issues, unity and socialist ideas. Whether or not they agree with it, the majority of this country and europe do not want the EU.

The rail companies have cut back on un-needed services and so have other companies. It is not ideal but it is practical, and that my friend is the difference between socialism and capitalism. You call the mines silver?, you are duped by this socialist idea of Thatcher driving this country into the ground, why can you not understand that the mines and other services were making more and more of a loss as peoples needs changed to cars and other ways of transport. Liverpool was in the grip of communist in the 1980's and was a terrible city, and that is where and when we got our bad reputation from. People in Liverpool themselves, now, looking back at Derek Hatton know what a dangerous militant he was and how he ruined this city. The move by that Conservative government gave people their first and their only hope of buying a house, which in turn meant they did not have to rely as much on the state when they retired; again, it is independance for ones self. The 1991 recession was a world wide recession after years of boom caused by the Reagan and Thatcher idea of capitalism and guess what? - we didn't have to go to the IMF like we did in the 1970's under Labour when there wasn't even a recession. I think that is a pretty good achievement and how we recovered so quickly, thanks to Thatcherism. It does matter, at least now we are not paying as much as we were in the 1970's to subsidise these services and slowly they are improving as the companies get better at managing. A service which was losing money cannot and should not be continued with the use of public money, when most of the country use cars/don't use it at all. It, again, is called independance, a word which doesn't ring with socialism and never will.

You still don't understand. A sub-standard, subsidised service doesn't benefit anyone. It doesn't benefit the public, as they have to pay stupid amounts of money to travel and the owners take money for the government. Privatisation has just led to higher costs for the people who need to use them, who often can't afford to use them. The rich people in the country enjoyed thatcher cause she rewarded them with tax breaks, which in theory, should trickle down to lower-incomes, but didn't really happen. In my idea of a perfect country, there shouldn't be barriers to anyone who wants to improve themselves or their family and that the government should provide free education and training for that, geographical barriers should be removed (ie good transport links) and that people who are unable to work or are on the lower spectrum of wage rates shouldn't be punished by high service costs, of which this money just goes straight into the rich people's hands. People need to heat their homes.

I personally think global warming is a load of balls but i don't think that we shouldn't be investing in other methods of power generation (nuclear for example) that rely on oil, gas and coal from dodgy countries.

Please do not lecture a Conservative supporter on selling off 'family silver', because Gordon Brown sold a huge amount of our Gold reserves (which were actually worth something and didn't make a loss) for a low price when Labour gained office. Again, Labour never works and certainly doesn't when it comes to economic policy.

The electricty and gas supplies were not loss-making and have the potential to be profit making. Because of the conservatives closing the mines there was a run on the gas supplies that we had in the north sea to burn to produce electricity. Now we are having to pay through the nose to heat our homes in the winter meaning that pensioners have to choose between eating or being cold.

I'm afraid illegal immigrants do cause crime, because a lot of them are here for the wrong reasons. They find a way of living here by using crime. Therefore they should not be here.

Most illegal immigrants are economic migrants to make money. Granted, they don't pay tax but they don't receive anything either. They often work for dodgy people in this country who want cheap labour. You don't have the figures on illegal immigrants because noone knows, under the radar. I dislike illegal immigrants because they will work for nothing and lower the wage rate for people on low-incomes, which can be really very damaging.

Yes, exactly, the UN sticks to what it is supposed to do, rather than the EU which is constantly making grabs at sovereignty, determined to gain more power.

The UN deals with a lot more countries than the EU with far different standpoints.

I would rather the puppet governments in South America which were not socialist/communist than a communist revolution in South America which very nearly occured. The Soviet Union played dirty, America played dirty to combat it and eventually it won. As for the United States, again I do not support everything it has done, but a world dominated by the United States rather than the PROC is a world I would much rather live in.

It's none of your business what happens in other countries, if a nation supports communism or socialism, you have to accept it. You have to accept that not everyone wants a capitalist method of government.

The Daily Mail tells it how it is, whereas you support the EU yet the majority of your country do not, you would certainly not make a good journalist, oh wait, yes; the Guardian.

The daily mail sensationalises, and often gets sued for libelous stories. They even said one of the people who were arrsted in the Madaline McCann case was a paedo and sex offender, which just wasn't true. It's sloppy journalism. I don't want to be a journalist, I'm not a gifted writer and the Guardian pulls out some better written and better researched journalism rather than just far-right propaganda. www.mailwatch.co.uk

Shes hated by 'millions' because of one of these;

• They were brought up to hate her.
• They have no idea of economics.
• They are socialists/communists in belief.

That is why people hate her. I, when younger, started thinking she ruined this country when I saw and read things on the internet about her time in office, but then I realised and ignored the propaganda and read the facts; she turned a failing, bankrupt former Empire into a modern day Great Power with a bustling economy in which people could work their way up again. She made it possible for more and more people in this country to have more money to spend on holidays/goods so that it in turn generated jobs. She also aroused a sense of national pride which we had lacked since world war two.

Lets have a referendum then on our membership of the Union and not EEA, do you agree or do you genuinely want a United States of Europe?

I'm never going to agree that the thatcher era was great for this nation as she did destroy communities, people's lives and livelihoods and there isn't any denying of that. I also think it was irresponsible to sell off public services and utilities which we are now paying for now, ordinary people. There is a lot of opposition to private ownership of services that were once public. You could argue that the destruction of the trade unions' power helped grow our economy, but now our workers are very unproductive and the trade-union crazy france are more productive than us. There is more than one way trying to change the economy and the economy isn't everything. Thatcher's policies often meant that people bought their council houses on mortgages, when the interest rates rose they couldn't afford the repayments, the housing market crashes and people with a bit of cash buy up the houses and rent them out to people who would have benefited from a council house. She wasn't always popular at the time, the poll tax riots?

I'd actually argue that apart from the growing budget deficit, labour have done very well in lowering the unemployment and keeping interest rates relatively low and growing the economy along with the long term rate that could be sustained, until around 12 months ago, where unfortunately unregulated US housing market and mortgage market collapsed, leading to a banking crisis. 17 years of sustained growth, with labour being there for more than 10 is a good effort. We're just now going to be paying alot of tax to make up the money for the bailouts and government debt that we have picked up. Managing the economy has been fairly good, but managing their fiscal policy is turning out to being a bit of a downfall.

I think it would be sad if we left the EU in my eyes as it shows our progress of hundreds of years of war together to a sense of unity and a realisation that all humans want in the end is a good life for themselves, their family, local, national and international community. Other social benefits which i have mentioned before would be good. I personally am in favour of a United Europe because I believe our influence in waning in the world. I would like to see a less-integrated federal government, with no cross border police or military. An elected president of the union and a more syndicated foreign policy. I'd like to see no more expansion of the EU (I think to expand to eastern europe was a bad idea.) I'd like to see a constitution that clearly limits the powers of the EU on its member states and the laws that can be passed. I'd like to see a common and strict immigration policy. I'd like to see markets regulated on a european-wide basis and I'd like the EU to stop being bullied by the USA and to distance itself from the pathetic and non-existant threat of terrorism and the war on terror. I'd like to see a common asylum seeker policy, where we share the asylum seekers between EU nations so it's fairly distributed/ A bill of rights detailing our rights to privacy and other rights would be welcomed too. The right to cede at an instance would be there too. But first and foremost the idea of the EU was a common market, the EEA. If the UKIP left the EEA and EU I think that economics would tell us that would be a very stupid idea.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't care who is in power (it really doesn't bother me this political ********) but if I had to chose between the queen, prince charles or the two younger princes (will and harry) i'd chose either of the two kids. I am sick of the queen dressing all snobby with the gloves on and trying to read a statement that some other idiot has written for her.

That is called style, and compared to the clothes we all wear which will date in around 5 years, royal fashion doesn't really look awful, because it is state dress code.

You still don't understand. A sub-standard, subsidised service doesn't benefit anyone. It doesn't benefit the public, as they have to pay stupid amounts of money to travel and the owners take money for the government. Privatisation has just led to higher costs for the people who need to use them, who often can't afford to use them. The rich people in the country enjoyed thatcher cause she rewarded them with tax breaks, which in theory, should trickle down to lower-incomes, but didn't really happen. In my idea of a perfect country, there shouldn't be barriers to anyone who wants to improve themselves or their family and that the government should provide free education and training for that, geographical barriers should be removed (ie good transport links) and that people who are unable to work or are on the lower spectrum of wage rates shouldn't be punished by high service costs, of which this money just goes straight into the rich people's hands. People need to heat their homes.

I personally think global warming is a load of balls but i don't think that we shouldn't be investing in other methods of power generation (nuclear for example) that rely on oil, gas and coal from dodgy countries.


The electricty and gas supplies were not loss-making and have the potential to be profit making. Because of the conservatives closing the mines there was a run on the gas supplies that we had in the north sea to burn to produce electricity. Now we are having to pay through the nose to heat our homes in the winter meaning that pensioners have to choose between eating or being cold.


Most illegal immigrants are economic migrants to make money. Granted, they don't pay tax but they don't receive anything either. They often work for dodgy people in this country who want cheap labour. You don't have the figures on illegal immigrants because noone knows, under the radar. I dislike illegal immigrants because they will work for nothing and lower the wage rate for people on low-incomes, which can be really very damaging.


The UN deals with a lot more countries than the EU with far different standpoints.


It's none of your business what happens in other countries, if a nation supports communism or socialism, you have to accept it. You have to accept that not everyone wants a capitalist method of government.


The daily mail sensationalises, and often gets sued for libelous stories. They even said one of the people who were arrsted in the Madaline McCann case was a paedo and sex offender, which just wasn't true. It's sloppy journalism. I don't want to be a journalist, I'm not a gifted writer and the Guardian pulls out some better written and better researched journalism rather than just far-right propaganda. www.mailwatch.co.uk


I'm never going to agree that the thatcher era was great for this nation as she did destroy communities, people's lives and livelihoods and there isn't any denying of that. I also think it was irresponsible to sell off public services and utilities which we are now paying for now, ordinary people. There is a lot of opposition to private ownership of services that were once public. You could argue that the destruction of the trade unions' power helped grow our economy, but now our workers are very unproductive and the trade-union crazy france are more productive than us. There is more than one way trying to change the economy and the economy isn't everything. Thatcher's policies often meant that people bought their council houses on mortgages, when the interest rates rose they couldn't afford the repayments, the housing market crashes and people with a bit of cash buy up the houses and rent them out to people who would have benefited from a council house. She wasn't always popular at the time, the poll tax riots?

I'd actually argue that apart from the growing budget deficit, labour have done very well in lowering the unemployment and keeping interest rates relatively low and growing the economy along with the long term rate that could be sustained, until around 12 months ago, where unfortunately unregulated US housing market and mortgage market collapsed, leading to a banking crisis. 17 years of sustained growth, with labour being there for more than 10 is a good effort. We're just now going to be paying alot of tax to make up the money for the bailouts and government debt that we have picked up. Managing the economy has been fairly good, but managing their fiscal policy is turning out to being a bit of a downfall.

I think it would be sad if we left the EU in my eyes as it shows our progress of hundreds of years of war together to a sense of unity and a realisation that all humans want in the end is a good life for themselves, their family, local, national and international community. Other social benefits which i have mentioned before would be good. I personally am in favour of a United Europe because I believe our influence in waning in the world. I would like to see a less-integrated federal government, with no cross border police or military. An elected president of the union and a more syndicated foreign policy. I'd like to see no more expansion of the EU (I think to expand to eastern europe was a bad idea.) I'd like to see a constitution that clearly limits the powers of the EU on its member states and the laws that can be passed. I'd like to see a common and strict immigration policy. I'd like to see markets regulated on a european-wide basis and I'd like the EU to stop being bullied by the USA and to distance itself from the pathetic and non-existant threat of terrorism and the war on terror. I'd like to see a common asylum seeker policy, where we share the asylum seekers between EU nations so it's fairly distributed/ A bill of rights detailing our rights to privacy and other rights would be welcomed too. The right to cede at an instance would be there too. But first and foremost the idea of the EU was a common market, the EEA. If the UKIP left the EEA and EU I think that economics would tell us that would be a very stupid idea.

It does benefit the public as it has already, no longer are we paying high taxes for services a lot of us don't even use. The people who need to use them can afford them, because it nows means they are not paying amazingly high taxes all year for something they might not and do not use all year. Wealth does trickle down, why can you not understand that when a company is making profit/people have money to set up business, that in turn creates jobs and in turn creates wealth. It is so simple and has been proven to work and does work. There will always be poverty, why does socialism and communism not understand this?, as Margaret Thatcher said to a left-wing Liberal Democrat; would you rather the poor be poorer? - that is basically what you are saying, you cannot have the rich poorer and not have the poor poorer as the rich do not then spend and create business, which in turn means less jobs for the poor. Yours and others socialist dream does not work and never will, how many more millions have to die from starvation and bad economic management at the hands of socialism? - Capitalism isn't perfect, but it puts bread on the table for the vast majority.

Good to hear, and from what I last had to argue with on this forum from other members over the subject, it seems this recession has knocked some sense into most peoples heads.

The mines were not making a profit and were heavily subsidised by the government which was already having to appeal to the IMF. The way older people are being treated now with higher gas and oil prices is a disgrace I totally agree, but again Labour should and have had ten years to combat this and have totally failed. Older generations of this country worked all their life, why should we now abandon them and treat them as we wouldn't even treat animals, it is a disgrace.

Illegal immigrants cost us in policing, which will amount to millions and millions, if not billions. If they are not paying taxes then I amafraid they have no right to stay in this country, and especially as they have not even been granted permission.

Yes it does, and therefore the EU is irrelvent.

Oh yes, like the revolution in the Russian Empire where a small group of communists took control 'for the greater good' and then managed the economy so badly that it collapsed and Russia and the former USSR is still recovering after nearly one hundred years of being held back.

Newspapers do often make up stories, but i'm afraid I and most of England have more faith in the Daily Mail than this government, a sad state it is in.

What communities?, the ones filled with hateful militant socialists/communists like my own city of Liverpool under Derek Hatton and the union leader Aruther Scargill? - It was harsh her economics yes, but i'm afraid it has benefitted this country and is still doing so now, by cutting back union powers which were crippling the government, by lowering taxes which involved business and even regular tax, so it encouraged business to expand and open up and for people to spend to support them businesses which in turn provided new jobs. I wish myself that mines, factories like in the victorian era were still chuffing out smoke, making our own products - but it wasn't sustainable so it had to close.

So even though the people do not want this EU superstate, you still support it? - I thought socialism was for the people? - signing away your sovereignty and our rights as country which has survived hundreds of years against many threats for the sake of a fairytale eurocrat dream which is a 'united europe' in which we all live under acommand economy and dance around little rainbows singing come by ar. It's a dream and you and many others are living it.

Why should our country have to share immigrants?; what kind of crazy and loony idea is this, let me ask you something, why should we share immigrants with europe?

The common sense approch would be to govern our own immigration policy, just like the United States, and most other countries do without having to ask permission from the EU. It is indeed, excuse after excuse to lead us through the back door into a EU superstate which I fear once we are in so far there will be no return.

[alexxxxx]

It does benefit the public as it has already, no longer are we paying high taxes for services a lot of us don't even use. The people who need to use them can afford them, because it nows means they are not paying amazingly high taxes all year for something they might not and do not use all year. Wealth does trickle down, why can you not understand that when a company is making profit/people have money to set up business, that in turn creates jobs and in turn creates wealth. It is so simple and has been proven to work and does work. There will always be poverty, why does socialism and communism not understand this?, as Margaret Thatcher said to a left-wing Liberal Democrat; would you rather the poor be poorer? - that is basically what you are saying, you cannot have the rich poorer and not have the poor poorer as the rich do not then spend and create business, which in turn means less jobs for the poor. Yours and others socialist dream does not work and never will, how many more millions have to die from starvation and bad economic management at the hands of socialism? - Capitalism isn't perfect, but it puts bread on the table for the vast majority.

I'm going to disagree with it helping the public. The only thing I can think privatisation has helped with is drive telephone costs down with fierce competition. Everything else I can't see anything but a lack of investment and fleecing of the public. In theory pure free market economics should help everyone, but i'd argue that government intervention to improve investment in capital and labour is overlooked. The idea that 'weath trickles down' is a good theory, and by economic theory it should work as jobs should be created, however, the income/wealth gap is widening and is continuing to do so.

The mines were not making a profit and were heavily subsidised by the government which was already having to appeal to the IMF. The way older people are being treated now with higher gas and oil prices is a disgrace I totally agree, but again Labour should and have had ten years to combat this and have totally failed. Older generations of this country worked all their life, why should we now abandon them and treat them as we wouldn't even treat animals, it is a disgrace.

I agree it is a disgrace and I'm not an all-out labour supporter at all. But maybe a more of an effort to slowly close the mines and create new jobs for them pit by pit basis should have been considered. Some miners never were re-employed and mining towns are now some of the poorest in the UK. Privatisation of public services is one of the reasons why older generations who are on limited pensions can no longer afford to heat their homes.

Illegal immigrants cost us in policing, which will amount to millions and millions, if not billions. If they are not paying taxes then I amafraid they have no right to stay in this country, and especially as they have not even been granted permission.

Yeah, i agree.

So even though the people do not want this EU superstate, you still support it? - I thought socialism was for the people? - signing away your sovereignty and our rights as country which has survived hundreds of years against many threats for the sake of a fairytale eurocrat dream which is a 'united europe' in which we all live under acommand economy and dance around little rainbows singing come by ar. It's a dream and you and many others are living it.

Why should our country have to share immigrants?; what kind of crazy and loony idea is this, let me ask you something, why should we share immigrants with europe?

The common sense approch would be to govern our own immigration policy, just like the United States, and most other countries do without having to ask permission from the EU. It is indeed, excuse after excuse to lead us through the back door into a EU superstate which I fear once we are in so far there will be no return.

We should share an immigration policy, as once an immigrant can gain another EEA/EU passport they can work wherever they like in the EU. We should share a common asylum seeker policy with strict limits on movement because our governement/country gets loads of asylum seekers that could just stay in France. Other EU countries should 'take one for the team' by taking some asylum seekers off our hands. I'd like the EU to respect each others sovereignty, with only laws on trade, movement of people and goods, improvements in technologies etc, consumer protection, bill of rights for people protecting citizens from national governments, immigration, asylum. Most other things should be left to the individual states. Benefits should be only be ablre to be sought after 8yrs of living in another member state and contributing significant amounts to the tax system. Measures should be brought in to allow the cession of a nation from the EU within 24 hours of a vote in a national parliament. It requires safeguards so if it 'does take a turn for the worse' we can get out.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm going to disagree with it helping the public. The only thing I can think privatisation has helped with is drive telephone costs down with fierce competition. Everything else I can't see anything but a lack of investment and fleecing of the public. In theory pure free market economics should help everyone, but i'd argue that government intervention to improve investment in capital and labour is overlooked. The idea that 'weath trickles down' is a good theory, and by economic theory it should work as jobs should be created, however, the income/wealth gap is widening and is continuing to do so.


I agree it is a disgrace and I'm not an all-out labour supporter at all. But maybe a more of an effort to slowly close the mines and create new jobs for them pit by pit basis should have been considered. Some miners never were re-employed and mining towns are now some of the poorest in the UK. Privatisation of public services is one of the reasons why older generations who are on limited pensions can no longer afford to heat their homes.


Yeah, i agree.



We should share an immigration policy, as once an immigrant can gain another EEA/EU passport they can work wherever they like in the EU. We should share a common asylum seeker policy with strict limits on movement because our governement/country gets loads of asylum seekers that could just stay in France. Other EU countries should 'take one for the team' by taking some asylum seekers off our hands. I'd like the EU to respect each others sovereignty, with only laws on trade, movement of people and goods, improvements in technologies etc, consumer protection, bill of rights for people protecting citizens from national governments, immigration, asylum. Most other things should be left to the individual states. Benefits should be only be ablre to be sought after 8yrs of living in another member state and contributing significant amounts to the tax system. Measures should be brought in to allow the cession of a nation from the EU within 24 hours of a vote in a national parliament. It requires safeguards so if it 'does take a turn for the worse' we can get out.

It has helped the general public, you now have money to spend on holidays/gardens - anything, than we have ever had before. The wealth gap is increasing, and there is nothing wrong with that. Why should there be a limit to how far people can go, to rich people I say goodluck to them if they have worked there way up to such wealth. They usually then invest that in shares in companies which provides growth for the company which means the company can expand.

It is not the governments job though to employ people, yes being unemployed is awful but i'm afraid if it is for the future stability of the nation then it has to be done. I would agree on that, that is why with higher prices now the oil andgas companies should be forced by the government to lower prices/keep them at a certain price. I don't like government intervention but the prices we pay compared to other countries is wrong. It can easily be solved if a government stands for pensioners and such.

Why should we do all that when we have been ruling ourselves for hundreds of years without europe? - it is completly pointless and the only motive is for a EU superstate so the eurocrat dream becomes reality.

[alexxxxx]

It has helped the general public, you now have money to spend on holidays/gardens - anything, than we have ever had before. The wealth gap is increasing, and there is nothing wrong with that. Why should there be a limit to how far people can go, to rich people I say goodluck to them if they have worked there way up to such wealth. They usually then invest that in shares in companies which provides growth for the company which means the company can expand.

It is not the governments job though to employ people, yes being unemployed is awful but i'm afraid if it is for the future stability of the nation then it has to be done. I would agree on that, that is why with higher prices now the oil andgas companies should be forced by the government to lower prices/keep them at a certain price. I don't like government intervention but the prices we pay compared to other countries is wrong. It can easily be solved if a government stands for pensioners and such.

Why should we do all that when we have been ruling ourselves for hundreds of years without europe? - it is completly pointless and the only motive is for a EU superstate so the eurocrat dream becomes reality.

It's just made things more expensive! In theory, if there is economic growth, everyone everyone should end up better off. And a wide gap in distribution of wealth is a bad thing, as it shows that the 'trickling down' effect doesn't work.

Implementing price ceilings won't work and the oil/gas suppliers will find other methods of finding that lost income. British Gas buys the majority of its gas from russia. If it can't purchase it at a price below the ceiling, the company will fail. Also it doesn't follow the free market principals that you seem to be banging on about earlier and giving out money to people is another government expense!

During those hundreds of years we've been constantly fighting with them. Now we're working with them. Seems like progress to me.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's just made things more expensive! In theory, if there is economic growth, everyone everyone should end up better off. And a wide gap in distribution of wealth is a bad thing, as it shows that the 'trickling down' effect doesn't work.

Implementing price ceilings won't work and the oil/gas suppliers will find other methods of finding that lost income. British Gas buys the majority of its gas from russia. If it can't purchase it at a price below the ceiling, the company will fail. Also it doesn't follow the free market principals that you seem to be banging on about earlier and giving out money to people is another government expense!

During those hundreds of years we've been constantly fighting with them. Now we're working with them. Seems like progress to me.

That is the case, however you then get to the point where too much tax/high prices damage the economy, such as in the 1970s were income tax on the rich was as high as 80% in which investors left the country and we became the sick man of europe.

Everyone has ended up better, as Mrs Thatcher said; would you rather the poor be poorer? - my dad and the people of this country remember the 1970's; the dead rotting in the morgues, they remember the rubbish on the streets and the picket lines, they remember two governments (Conservative & Labour) crippled and brought down by dangerous socialist militantism and they remember the complete loss of pride in this country. Capitalism isn't anywhere near perfect, but it works.

As for the gas companies, its true that in Britain we are paying more (even from some of the same companies) compared to France and so on, indeed it does backfire on my free market principles in the short term, but in the long term I would make the United Kingdom energy independant with nuclear energy which would make energy more affordable for everyone.

Again, working together and being together are two different things.

[alexxxxx]

That is the case, however you then get to the point where too much tax/high prices damage the economy, such as in the 1970s were income tax on the rich was as high as 80% in which investors left the country and we became the sick man of europe.

Everyone has ended up better, as Mrs Thatcher said; would you rather the poor be poorer? - my dad and the people of this country remember the 1970's; the dead rotting in the morgues, they remember the rubbish on the streets and the picket lines, they remember two governments (Conservative & Labour) crippled and brought down by dangerous socialist militantism and they remember the complete loss of pride in this country. Capitalism isn't anywhere near perfect, but it works.

As for the gas companies, its true that in Britain we are paying more (even from some of the same companies) compared to France and so on, indeed it does backfire on my free market principles in the short term, but in the long term I would make the United Kingdom energy independant with nuclear energy which would make energy more affordable for everyone.

Again, working together and being together are two different things.

Or, you could alternatively tax not as much the middle/working classes so they have more money to spend, which should in theory work as well. It will never be perfect.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml Income inequality is a problem, as it can cause massive social divides. Unfortunately that page doesn't show much over the last 30-40-50 years. But it shows that income inequality is growing again and again. The poorest are getting poorer (relatively) and the rich are getting richer (relatively). It does show everyone's 'real' income rises however, but not at the same rate, or even near.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Or, you could alternatively tax not as much the middle/working classes so they have more money to spend, which should in theory work as well. It will never be perfect.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml Income inequality is a problem, as it can cause massive social divides. Unfortunately that page doesn't show much over the last 30-40-50 years. But it shows that income inequality is growing again and again. The poorest are getting poorer (relatively) and the rich are getting richer (relatively). It does show everyone's 'real' income rises however, but not at the same rate, or even near.

I believe in low taxes all across the board, I believe no government has any right to take over 45% of someones earnings, regardless of what they earn. I also believe in low taxes for middle class and working class as that is what fuels tourism and growth.

The gap will widen as enterprenialism has made so many more people millionares and billionares and that is fantastic, that is why it is widening. I read that in the 1970's less than half the population had a telephone, by the end of the 1980's most of the population had a phone. Her low tax regime benefitted everyone and that is why we have seen an explosion in jobs since the early 1980's, just look at the London Skyline or the Liverpool Skyline - it is all a product of Thatcherism, not perfect but works best.