Why Cameron and May are onto a Hiding Over the Bulgarians ET Al

The Political Idealism that sold of the countries assets built up over a 100 years have led in part to our current woes (housing and energy)and the example of private companies and their owners is one of greedy avoidance of contributing to the society there profits came from that and no longer manufacturing what we need to consume and the benifit culture that is now based on minimum wage 0 hours on which no one can live without state intervention and im not even touching on the banks

There is no amount of fiddling round the edges thats going to change any of this , the patient is in cardiac arrest

No, that is how you chose to interpret what I said - you took what I said out of context and twisted it to suit your agenda. Be that as it may, I believe that people should take responsibility for their lives. With freedoms come obligations. Concepts that seem to be totally alien to you.

I read yesterday of an unemployed single mother of two young children aged 8 and 3 who managed to obtain 8 "Payday Loans" totalling £1,690 which she used to buy Christmas presents for her kids which included a bicycle, TV and DVD player for each of them. She admits it is unlikely she will be able to repay the loans unless she lets her children 'go short'. No doubt you'd advocate that the tax-payer should fund this act of gross irresponsibility.

Bankruptcy and bank robbery are not uniquely 21st century ills and have been a part of the way of life for many a long year. It's the EU with its daft and hugely expensive CAP is largely to blame for the destruction of the environment.

You failed to see the point: the Commissars who ran mother Russia's big cities such as Leningrad, Moscow and Vladivostok had to accommodate the hordes who came looking for work somewhere. They were in a very similar position to that to be faced by the British government and local councils in a week or so's time. If I recall correctly, you have a rather fine caravan that you use as your home during the pop festival season: I trust that, in the spirit of comradeship, you will offer to house an itinerant Roma family.

And no, I don't read the Guardian with any regularity. I find it is injurious to my health!

In a way, yes, but for crimes that are no more serious than a careless word about a third party who might be a very corrupt Commissar - and most were.

Ah yes, Guantanamo .... and which British Prime Minister not only gave his approval for its establishment but also gave his approval for rendition flights to land in the UK and for British suspects to be tortured abroad, in Cairo and elsewhere? Hint: it wasn't Maggie Thatcher or John Major.

You're referring to Thatcher's "Right To Buy" policy, I take it. And how truly popular that was too, with both council tenants and with the councils themselves - even though some were ideologically-opposed (as you are), they benefited none the less. It wasn't the central government who got the cash raised but rather the local councils. The houses were sold to those who occupied them and were tenants in good stead (ie: not owing any rent) and there were, I believe, strict covenants imposed to prevent them being sold on at a profit for around 10 years. Thatcher did this primarily because local councils were in difficulties maintaining their housing stock, not least because the rents were often fixed and had not kept up with inflation. A friend of mine from my seafaring days was born and brought-up in a council house in Southampton - a three bedroomed semi costing his parents the princely sum of £10 a week.

It is true that part of her policy was to stop local councils from building and owning housing and instead concentrate on providing good value for money services - a policy that was never reversed by Blair's and Brown's governments. In fact it's not entirely true that councils can not be involved in social housing provision, they can in partnership with not-for-profit housing associations such as Ty Cymru in Wales.

So you're in favour of people owning their own homes but against being able to buy them as sitting council tenants! A certain lack of consistency in your argument there! Land costs what land costs and it is a precious resource. I am totally against concreting-over vast areas of green belt which the country needs as its lungs as well as for recreation and tourism.

But that's the whole point. You haven't managed to come up with ONE suggestion! All you've done is spout your ideological mantra, bluster and attempted to score cheap points by twisting my words to your advantage. Sorry: FAIL!

All that apart, you may agree with me that there are certain industries that should be 100% under British control, financed and managed by a partnership of government and British not-for-profit companies; these would include water, electricity generation and supply, the railways and telecommunications. All essential for the nation's security. In addition, Britain should tear-up and/or ignore the EU's insane agriculture policy and encourage farmers to grow crops to feed people and not the intervention stores. Added to that, councils should be required to convert their land-banked acreages into allotments which would generate rental income as well as provide areas for people to grow some of the fruit and veg they consume. It is sheer madness that Britain be required to import countless gallons of milk from France, Belgium and Holland when our own dairy farmers are having to dispose of an equal amount of their product down the drain. And, contreversially, I would suggest relaxing the hunting ban for vermin control reasons and especially during the lambing season which is about to start.

The EU has failed all the countries who've joined the club from and since 2004. Rather than help these countries modernise and provide more employment and better conditions at home, they've permitted, nay encouraged, migration from those countries to the richer nations placing them (the richer nations) under increasingly intollerable pressures to house, feed and employ the migrants. But of course, as we know, Britain is the destination of choice and with more than 60 million currently resident, there's no more room! Rather than laying concrete, we should be planting trees and reforesting our land.

I dont know where to start with your thoughtful and well delivered comments.





















































Dom

LOL pity you cant get immodium for the mind

You obviously need it!

And of course, that is something you would never do.

For "twist my words" John I guess that is simply an admission that mark doesnt understand (or want to)the concept of consequence,s clearly if you stop housing support and stop child benefit children will suffer either by begging in the street or if in what he says next "if you cant support them dont have them" presumably being separated from their parents (a really cost effective solution not)Its not really clear if there is any other conclusion that could be drawn since , although I repeated his words 3 times in that thread Mark wont explain himself further Perhaps "Twist" simply means "Notice"

I was merely pointing out that for someone like Sir Markham who twists words around like there is no tomorrow, it was a bit cheeky to be be accusing someone else of doing that very thing.

As a general rule I don't but I would be happy to make an exception in your case, John!

I have absolutely no objection to the tax-payer supporting low income families who would otherwise be in dire financial straits but I do object to subsidising those who won't do anything to help themselves - those whose sole source of income is provided by the state. The problem is that too many people don't even attempt to find employment because they are better off (financially) on the dole and the social.

My position is far more eloquently detailed by the columnist Amanda Platell who today wrote:

As a general rule you do and not just with me. It seems to be what you do.

Accepting what you say below to be true Mark, wouldnt that suggest to you that there is something that is VERY wrong when the state gives someone the minimum required to survive and they receive LESS if they work that to me suggests the flaw is that folk are being paid far to little to support themselves and there families?

Minimum wage and zero hours affect a large proportion of the workforce and are the norm for large companies forcing there employees into the subsidy trap

A single case of an adult childs inability to budget is hardly compelling as an aguement, what I can say is that many schools here operate breakfast clubs and food banks are in great demand and that is something I have never seen before in the UK unless you were a miner in the 70,s even the Government is introducing free meals to all next year in infants schools , now that is eloquent!

I dont think full employment is any kind of reality Dom nor likely to be, I think as a society we need to re-evaluate work, job sharing and move away from demonising folk less capable perhaps than ourselves the facts are that if you work full time 40 plus hours ,on minimum wage, and have young kids and rent from a private landlord then you will need subsidies of one sort or another since the difference between the £1000 you earn and the £800 pounds plus you will expend on rent ,council tax and energy costs dont add up nor does it encourage self sufficiency and pride in supporting your family that used to be the norm here

You may not agree but I firmly believe that British jobs should go first and foremost to British born (and, where appropriate, their foreign spouses) but those too lazy to work should not be rewarded by state benefits. That would go some way to reducing unemployment among Britons.

Erm .... if a chap earns £1000 a month and his total outgoings are £800, why would he need any state assistance - he's still got £200 left over?!

I wouldn't disagree but I recently seen a fruit farmer on Countryfile saying he would now be out of business without foreign workers as he stated that the "locals" wouldn't do the job at the rate he was paying, he was paying above minimum too!

Brilliant Mark Im not sure if reproducing the Phillipines version would be entirely popular here but it would sure solve the housing problem and cut down on congestion in London. I hope you have been keeping in touch with Italy Dom.

Glad to see your in touch with life in the UK Mark!

Lets see the monthly bus pass to a local town 6 miles away is £99.60

School meals for the kids are £54 a month each

TV licence £150 ish

Oh and I forgot clothes did I forget any other costs chaps?

















OOPs forgot food ah well food banks need expanding I guess

It's not just the Philippines which has such restrictions but also America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia - to mention but a few. Not forgetting that ten years ago, the UK had this too.

I merely used the figures you gave in your earlier reply. But maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word "total"!