106-year-old resident loses battle against carehome closure

[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