106-year-old resident loses battle against carehome closure

[Bun]

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

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

how would you prefer a general election to work then?

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Seatherny]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

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

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

[Seatherny]

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

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

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

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

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

[TaffTalk]

how would you prefer a general election to work then?

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

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

[Bun]

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

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

yeah you already do that, you know them things called Members of Parliament? you could argue that our system does need changing, maybe introduce PR (lib dems would love you forever) as FPTP has a lot of critics. maybe change the way the president prime minister is elected, become more like america and their oh-so-great democracy? :rolleyes: at the end of the day, whichever party has the majority in parliament and is in power isn't going to want to change the system because it got them in power anyway.

[alexxxxx]

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

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

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

Have you never heard of a budget surplus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you study economics at any level?

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

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

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

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

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

lmao i have read the swp and other people's websites and what they want is ridiculous, plus most socialists are purely wums. I don't agree with them because eventually it makes everyone poorer.

[KyleSmith]

Its sad

BTW I live around the corner from there