106-year-old resident loses battle against carehome closure

[Bun]

I favour the abolition of whips, but in this current system Gordon Brown has the influence to divert money from central government to local government in case of emergency.

erm i wasn't on about whips lol. i was referring to the models of representation...

[alexxxxx]

YES I am not saying lets get rid of free healthcare or benefits, I am saying that people should strive for the best;- you can see it all around you, kids who don't have any ambition because they can just fall back on benefits when they are older "it doesn't matter the state will look after me if I don't try" - how on EARTH can we expect to compete with the world when an attitude like that is spreading, epsecially around families whom are poorer and whose kids have not known any better.

The anglo-saxon model DOES work, no its not perfect and NEVER will be and I have never said it will be. There will ALWAYS be hardship, socialism has been tried alexxx just listen to history, it failed.

Margaret Thatcher said, would you rather the poor be poorer?

NEVER has that been more true.

you said that you'd favour the abolition of the NHS in earlier debates? and on to the matter of thatchers 'would you rather the poor be poorer?' well they ARE getting poorer comparatively with the rest of the UK and are suffering from social poverty caused by the relentless freemarketeering of the conservatives and labour party leaving people at the bottom of the pile without a foothold on the wall. The labour party did something by introducing the minimum wage, helping out millions, but has gone nowhere near well enough. Ex-mining towns are no-hope towns and places where traditionally working class people live in find it hard as there are little moderately well paid jobs anymore in manufacturing or other manual labour jobs as these jobs have been exported. These people haven't got jobs that they can easily pick up and training isn't always available or free (you yourself has said why should you pay for someone else's training.) These people in the cheaper ends of town have no ambition because their lives are so so so out of touch with middle class and upper class. Seeing what they can't have just makes people angry. Is it a coincidence how the most capitalist country, the usa, has much more crime than those with more social systems, like sweden, norway and finland. I wouldn't say so. Middle and Upper class move well away of these areas and schools and the local area decline as families with social issues move in and cause havoc as they have literally nothing else to do. Why work for minimum wage now when you get taxed on it!?

There's not a felt tip line where you can be either a capitalist country or a socialist country. It depends how you rate failure or not. Failure to generate rapid GDP growth, yes it did fail. People living in east germany now are complaining now. I have seen interviews with people where they prefer the old system as at least they had a job and they had more self-belief. Homelessness wasn't always as much of an issue in communist states, you were given a house and Healthcare is free. GDP is not the end-all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you said that you'd favour the abolition of the NHS in earlier debates? and on to the matter of thatchers 'would you rather the poor be poorer?' well they ARE getting poorer comparatively with the rest of the UK and are suffering from social poverty caused by the relentless freemarketeering of the conservatives and labour party leaving people at the bottom of the pile without a foothold on the wall.

I have not said I would favour the abolition of the NHS. I have clearly said that the NHS needs cutting down and the issue is its management. The NHS is far too centralised. I would see how this pans out, if this radical reformation of the NHS did not work then I would see no alternative to the NHS other than privatisation.

On people getting poorer, people are not getting poorer. People are getting richer, why do you hate success? - not everybody can be successful and that is what you socialists need to learn. There will always be a gap between rich and poor, always.

The labour party did something by introducing the minimum wage, helping out millions, but has gone nowhere near well enough. Ex-mining towns are no-hope towns and places where traditionally working class people live in find it hard as there are little moderately well paid jobs anymore in manufacturing or other manual labour jobs as these jobs have been exported.

Yes because the mines did not make money or a profit, they made a loss thanks to the stubborness and greediness of the socialist unions which had crippled both the Heath government and the Callagahan government in the 1970s. Why on earth would somebody buy British coal at £100 per tonne when they could buy Asian coal at £30 per tonne? - the answer is that they wouldnt and as the economy showed, they didnt.

These people haven't got jobs that they can easily pick up and training isn't always available or free (you yourself has said why should you pay for someone else's training.) These people in the cheaper ends of town have no ambition because their lives are so so so out of touch with middle class and upper class. Seeing what they can't have just makes people angry. Is it a coincidence how the most capitalist country, the usa, has much more crime than those with more social systems, like sweden, norway and finland. I wouldn't say so.

Instead of moaning, getting angry and becoming jealous at other peoples success why don't they get of their backsides and do something. My family was never rich, infact my grandmothers side used to have to steal from the back of lorries just to all be fed properly in post-war Liverpool. What did they do? - they didn't rely on the state and others, they all worked hard and worked their way up, they didn't sit back and wait for the government to give them money or wait for the government to punish the rich.

Middle and Upper class move well away of these areas and schools and the local area decline as families with social issues move in and cause havoc as they have literally nothing else to do. Why work for minimum wage now when you get taxed on it!?

This is why the lower end of the taxing system needs to be removed which would un-complicate the taxation system and would remove the poorest of the poor out of the tax system. On the families with social issues; well what would you like us to do to deal with scum such as that? - would you like us to tax the rich and give to them in the false hope that they will become good hard working citzens? - does not work alex.

There's not a felt tip line where you can be either a capitalist country or a socialist country. It depends how you rate failure or not. Failure to generate rapid GDP growth, yes it did fail. People living in east germany now are complaining now. I have seen interviews with people where they prefer the old system as at least they had a job and they had more self-belief. Homelessness wasn't always as much of an issue in communist states, you were given a house and Healthcare is free. GDP is not the end-all.

I cannot believe you are saying this, what utter contempt and shallowness you show not only for your own freedoms and wealth, but for other peoples misery and suffering in a socialist state. Yeah they might of had jobs, but the fact is that they were dirt poor, had no freedom and had no hope of prosperity.

GDP is the end all i'm afraid, because as HISTORY has shown, not my opinion, but as HISTORY as shown is that without freedom and oppertunity you cannot create the wealth and prosperity that a democracy requires. As Thatcher said to Hughes;

You would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.

It is nothing but hatred for success and a belief that has no place in economies and belongs on the rubbish dump, along with the politics of Karl Marx and his socialist loonatics who created the 'socialist heaven' you seem to believe in; Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and the rest of them.

You go to North Korea and see what great lives they are living, yeah they have no taxes and free healthcare - but there is nothing there, because there is no money or wealth being generated there are no doctors, no medicines, no cures - there is no hope or motivation or tools for anyone to do better for themselves.

[alexxxxx]

I have not said I would favour the abolition of the NHS. I have clearly said that the NHS needs cutting down and the issue is its management. The NHS is far too centralised. I would see how this pans out, if this radical reformation of the NHS did not work then I would see no alternative to the NHS other than privatisation.

On people getting poorer, people are not getting poorer. People are getting richer, why do you hate success? - not everybody can be successful and that is what you socialists need to learn. There will always be a gap between rich and poor, always.

The gap between the richest quartile and the lowest quartile is becoming ever so larger. This causes SOCIAL PROBLEMS. THAT is true. They are not becoming closer together nor are they staying the same, it is growing. That is an issue economically.

Yes because the mines did not make money or a profit, they made a loss thanks to the stubborness and greediness of the socialist unions which had crippled both the Heath government and the Callagahan government in the 1970s. Why on earth would somebody buy British coal at £100 per tonne when they could buy Asian coal at £30 per tonne? - the answer is that they wouldnt and as the economy showed, they didnt.

I'm not arguing that it is an issue that the coal mines were shut down. I'm arguing that these people have had promises of new jobs, new training BROKEN.

Instead of moaning, getting angry and becoming jealous at other peoples success why don't they get of their backsides and do something. My family was never rich, infact my grandmothers side used to have to steal from the back of lorries just to all be fed properly in post-war Liverpool. What did they do? - they didn't rely on the state and others, they all worked hard and worked their way up, athey didn't sit back and wait for the government to give them money or wait for the government to punish the rich.

Do what exactly? Decent jobs are not always easy to come by? My family is the same, my dad was working full time at 16 and went to night school to earn more qualifications after his dad died young and my grandma needed someone else around the house (he went to a boarding school before that). It's not uncommon this thing called 'working hard.'

This is why the lower end of the taxing system needs to be removed which would un-complicate the taxation system and would remove the poorest of the poor out of the tax system. On the families with social issues; well what would you like us to do to deal with scum such as that? - would you like us to tax the rich and give to them in the false hope that they will become good hard working citzens? - does not work alex.

No, money is not the end-all of sorting out local areas, infact it can hard places. There is a shortage of decent teachers and decent schools in this country. Some teachers are no more than crowd controllers who's job can only be described as keeping the kids in school between 9am and 3pm. I go to a college where people from all different backgrounds go to (those who recieve £30/week EMA to those whose parents earn £500k+ year). It is a really well run establishment and my school beforehand was very good as well for a state school, though this might be to do with the intake of students, but I applaud some of the management there. What's the point in investing in IT when the kids can't be trusted to use it. Families with social issues will be attracted anywhere where the houses are cheap. There's not a lot you can do about it, but they ruin lives for everyone else in that community. I personally think some people are not fit for parenthood, that's the issue. The 'we're a nation of individuals' ridded people of any social responsibility. No one looks out for anyone but themselves and so some parents have grown up with that attitude and raising their kids not giving one thought about them, letting them fall in to crime with other likeminded kids. That's why you're considered a good parent in some circles if they've got an xbox and a TV because they believe that's good parenting.

I cannot believe you are saying this, what utter contempt and shallowness you show not only for your own freedoms and wealth, but for other peoples misery and suffering in a socialist state. Yeah they might of had jobs, but the fact is that they were dirt poor, had no freedom and had no hope of prosperity.

I'm not saying i agree with all out socialism because at the end of the day it DOESN'T work, but I think that a mixture of the two can find a good balance.

GDP is the end all i'm afraid, because as HISTORY has shown, not my opinion, but as HISTORY as shown is that without freedom and oppertunity you cannot create the wealth and prosperity that a democracy requires. As Thatcher said to Hughes;

You would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.

It is nothing but hatred for success and a belief that has no place in economies and belongs on the rubbish dump, along with the politics of Karl Marx and his socialist loonatics who created the 'socialist heaven' you seem to believe in; Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and the rest of them.

You go to North Korea and see what great lives they are living, yeah they have no taxes and free healthcare - but there is nothing there, because there is no money or wealth being generated there are no doctors, no medicines, no cures - there is no hope or motivation or tools for anyone to do better for themselves.

GDP isn't the end all. Why is Denmark consistently considered the greatest place to live in the world, with its high taxes and 'socialist' policies. Even with these 'burdens' on their economy they can still rake in a higher GDP per capita higher than us!

I don't think socialism/communism works all out, but elements about public ownership, free healthcare and high public spending creates a great environment to live in for everybody.

[Jordy]

Seems to be part of a much wider issue, after speaking to my mother who is manager of two private nursing homes, it seems this is the case; Councils throughout the UK are selling nursing homes, first of all it costs them an absolute bomb to run. All council employees get enormous pensions and can be part of unions etc, this costs the Council a lot, when the Council can instead just pay for them to live at a Private Nursing Home (The majority are now) it is much cheaper.

Councils are also making lots of cuts atm due to the economical situation and Nursing Homes typically take up a lot of valuable land so the Council makes an absolute fortune in the short term by selling them off.

Ironically, Gordon Brown has backed the 106 year-old lady you will be glad to learn, I have no doubt you won't praise him but it seems for once Dan, he has listened to you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ome-fight.html

The council has chosen to ignore him however, although it does show he spends time on issues like this as well as Susan Boyle

[-:Undertaker:-]

The gap between the richest quartile and the lowest quartile is becoming ever so larger. This causes SOCIAL PROBLEMS. THAT is true. They are not becoming closer together nor are they staying the same, it is growing. That is an issue economically.

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.

I'm not arguing that it is an issue that the coal mines were shut down. I'm arguing that these people have had promises of new jobs, new training BROKEN.

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.

Do what exactly? Decent jobs are not always easy to come by? My family is the same, my dad was working full time at 16 and went to night school to earn more qualifications after his dad died young and my grandma needed someone else around the house (he went to a boarding school before that). It's not uncommon this thing called 'working hard.'

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?

No, money is not the end-all of sorting out local areas, infact it can hard places. There is a shortage of decent teachers and decent schools in this country. Some teachers are no more than crowd controllers who's job can only be described as keeping the kids in school between 9am and 3pm. I go to a college where people from all different backgrounds go to (those who recieve £30/week EMA to those whose parents earn £500k+ year). It is a really well run establishment and my school beforehand was very good as well for a state school, though this might be to do with the intake of students, but I applaud some of the management there.

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)

What's the point in investing in IT when the kids can't be trusted to use it. Families with social issues will be attracted anywhere where the houses are cheap. There's not a lot you can do about it, but they ruin lives for everyone else in that community. I personally think some people are not fit for parenthood, that's the issue. The 'we're a nation of individuals' ridded people of any social responsibility. No one looks out for anyone but themselves and so some parents have grown up with that attitude and raising their kids not giving one thought about them, letting them fall in to crime with other likeminded kids. That's why you're considered a good parent in some circles if they've got an xbox and a TV because they believe that's good parenting.

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.

I'm not saying i agree with all out socialism because at the end of the day it DOESN'T work, but I think that a mixture of the two can find a good balance.

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.

GDP isn't the end all. Why is Denmark consistently considered the greatest place to live in the world, with its high taxes and 'socialist' policies. Even with these 'burdens' on their economy they can still rake in a higher GDP per capita higher than us!

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.

I don't think socialism/communism works all out, but elements about public ownership, free healthcare and high public spending creates a great environment to live in for everybody.

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.

Seems to be part of a much wider issue, after speaking to my mother who is manager of two private nursing homes, it seems this is the case; Councils throughout the UK are selling nursing homes, first of all it costs them an absolute bomb to run. All council employees get enormous pensions and can be part of unions etc, this costs the Council a lot, when the Council can instead just pay for them to live at a Private Nursing Home (The majority are now) it is much cheaper.

Councils are also making lots of cuts atm due to the economical situation and Nursing Homes typically take up a lot of valuable land so the Council makes an absolute fortune in the short term by selling them off.

Ironically, Gordon Brown has backed the 106 year-old lady you will be glad to learn, I have no doubt you won't praise him but it seems for once Dan, he has listened to you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ome-fight.html

The council has chosen to ignore him however, although it does show he spends time on issues like this as well as Susan Boyle

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.

[Technologic]

Gordon Brown has more important things to deal with than some old lady in a retirement home

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gordon Brown has more important things to deal with than some old lady in a retirement home

..things such as; Susan Boyle.

"Gordon Brown revealed today that he had phoned two of the judges from the TV show Britain's Got Talent to check up on the singer Susan Boyle after her admission to a clinic in north London last night."

Michael Jackson

"Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both said they are "saddened" by the death of pop legend Michael Jackson."

or even John & Edward

"But while 18-year-old twins John and Edward Grimes and their fellow contestants were relaxing, they were being discussed by none other than Gordon Brown. Mr Brown, who is a self-confessed fan of the ITV talent contest, said the Irish twins, who have divided the nation, are 'not very good.' The Prime Minister’s comments come just days after his Conservative rival David Cameron declared the pair kept him glued to his seat."

[Technologic]

..things such as; Susan Boyle.

"Gordon Brown revealed today that he had phoned two of the judges from the TV show Britain's Got Talent to check up on the singer Susan Boyle after her admission to a clinic in north London last night."

Michael Jackson

"Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both said they are "saddened" by the death of pop legend Michael Jackson."

or even John & Edward

"But while 18-year-old twins John and Edward Grimes and their fellow contestants were relaxing, they were being discussed by none other than Gordon Brown. Mr Brown, who is a self-confessed fan of the ITV talent contest, said the Irish twins, who have divided the nation, are 'not very good.' The Prime Minister’s comments come just days after his Conservative rival David Cameron declared the pair kept him glued to his seat."

So? This is just another media dig at Brown.

Anyway, better Brown and labour than the BNP in disguise (UKIP) who don't even know the difference between a Burqa and Hijab.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So? This is just another media dig at Brown.

Anyway, better Brown and labour than the BNP in disguise (UKIP) who don't even know the difference between a Burqa and Hijab.

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: