a general lack of it then I guess at least Mark is not stupid enough to defend his attack on innocent kids
Actually Keith, if you read what I actually wrote and commented on that rather than going off half-cocked on what you thought I wrote or assumed I meant, you'd see that I wasn't attacking kids at all but rather their mindless parents. Being a conscientious parent and step-parent, I would never attack a child in any way whatsoever.
Kindly explain? Many other countries have considerably longer qualifying periods for citizenship than the UK and, if I'm not very much mistaken, the UK's qualifying period used to be ten years but was reduced (possibly by Thatcher). There are good reasons to have a longer period.
Defininetly not the case. But I dont think you have an answer. Plenty to say though, unless you call this an answer to everything. Your type of answer: There's a fair chance that these Poppy Growing people that you despise, don't think much of Tetley drinking Yorkshire folk either.
I fully accept your deep embarrassment Mark but I neither "thought" nor "assumed" anything I simply noticed the violence on children of your opinion contained in your own words and commented ironically in my reply re: workhouse, I was mindful of my Grandmothers accounts of the fears of her generation. Clearly your suggestion would lead to families who can no longer pay there rent out on the street and child benefit (you actually emphasise all benefits) available to all (even the rich)not being available to support basic needs like food and education costs this in my opinion is punishing children for, what you see as the sins of their parents your assertions that you would never "attack" a child doesn't stand up since what you proposed is exactly that an attack on innocent children. Had you suggested birching feckless parents or forced labor cleaning the streets, whilst I might have argued against that view, you would not , five days later be trying to defend the indefensible proposals you made by suggesting you didn't say them or that its not what you meant. Now that is Lala Land
Fair enough, I would personalty find that statement to be embarrassing but far be it for me to notice at no point have you addressed the substance of my assertion other than to claim you either didnt say it or perhaps understand the implication of what you wrote,I with draw my earlier assertion that you wouldnt be stupid enough to defend your post. Should read you would like to but dont know how.
I'm slightly confused by this. I'm assuming, virtue of you using this forum, that you have a wife/husband from overseas. Are you saying you think our spouses shouldn't be allowed to be employed and their jobs should go to British people? Isn't that a bit fascist?
No, what I'm saying is simply that British should have first call to fill job vacancies. Patriotic and possibly nationalist but not fascist.
Umm, I think I should jump back into this one.. Mark, obviously I was humouring you with my tree hugging commie description of my political opinions. I actually disagree with communism on a very fundamental level – the right to vote. Above all, I am a devout democrat, I want to live in a system of democracy and I think our country lacks some very basic improvements that have been implemented throughout the world. Such as getting rid of an unelected house, proportional representation and more accountable politicians. But yes, I am a leftie. And proud of it! I have a theory, that political opinion is based more on the level of empathy a person has rather than any sort of IQ range. The less empathic a person is, the more likely they will find policies such as a reduction in welfare spending, removing free health care and other right wing policies appealing. And likewise the more empathic a person is, the more they find themselves supporting more socially positive policies such as a living wage, free education and healthcare, etc. And so the arguments will continue... There are economists who give credence to social policies such as welfare, free education and of course free healthcare. Arguing that these systems boost economies, provide longevity to the workforce and generally ensure the systems keep going for another generation. But then there are other economists who argue that healthcare, welfare and other social policies cost too much and the economy cannot sustain them. But these are also the people who argue for tax cuts for the wealthy because they lay golden eggs (otherwise known as jobs) that benefits everyone else. But, for me.. The argument really goes like this. Mr Millionaire is frustrated because his taxes pay for someone else to get free healthcare, he pays for his health provisions as and when he needs them. He hates paying for those lazy scroungers living off of benefits when he has worked all his life and never had a penny off of anyone he thinks he didn’t earn. And he can’t understand how he must pay taxes to help others get educated, after all he pays for his children’s tuition and will do until they get their masters degrees in Oxford. He thinks those taxes would be better off in his bank account so he could reinvest them for future business plans and job creation. Mr Minimum Wage gets upset every time he looks at his pay slip and sees how more than a fifth of his salary is taken up by tax and national insurance. He worries because he learns from the news that in future his national insurance might be for nothing, he might not get a state pension when he retires. He struggles to save money because every penny is taken up by bills and he has to have his income topped up with state funds Mr Millionaire takes out a fictitious loan from a company he owns based offshore (which turns out to be the parent company of his main company here in the UK). He pays back this loan and has his salary paid out of it and gets a massive reduction in tax as a result. Mr Millionaire is the big boss to Mr Minimum Wage and uses his savings to invest in a number of ways. He puts more money into the growth of his business with a dedicated customer service team based in a call centre in Cape Town, he hires a few more staff in the UK and puts some more money aside for his offspring to add to their growing inheritance. Mr Minimum Wage has given up on asking for a pay rise, he knows he won’t get one. His boss (Mr Millionaire) doesn’t think he needs to pay much more than the minimum wage, after all – why get 2 workers on the so called living wage when you can get 3 workers on the minimum wage! And who is right? Who is wrong?
I actually agree with much of what you wrote, Sean, surprising as that may seem. However I do think you have a fixation about the country's capitalist woes and target whom you choose to call "Mr Millionaire" for your ire. May I suggest we rename him to be "Mr Rich Entrepreneur" because I believe there's far worse than he: the brokers and bankers who are simply systemic parasites who don't actually contribute to the economy but get rich by virtue of their control over money, trade and commodities. Is it right that a bank that had to be bailed-out with public money should be paying bonuses of over £100,000 to already highly-paid members of staff whilst that same bank is cutting front-line staff and giving no or minimal salary increases to those who remain? That's worse than immoral and unjust! I agree with your sentiments regarding Mr Minimum Wage and his reliance on the State to make ends meet. Two things need to happen: Minimum Wage needs to be raised to probably double its current level and State Benefits should cease to be paid as "secondary income" and only be paid in emergency situations and for the short-term only. That will cause a rise in prices, that's inevitable but with less money being paid in cash benefits and credits, taxation requirements would be less. And, as I mentioned earlier, "zero-hour" contracts need to be abolished. The problem for the less-well educated or advantaged nationals of the richer northern European countries is that there is an over-abundance of cheap labour available within the EU and that pool quite dramatically increases on 1st January. And to prevent accusations of racism, EU nationals get preferential treatment in the UK -- remember that native-born Britons are not protected by anti-race discrimination legislation (I believe I am correct in saying that within Europe, only the UK Government has enacted discriminatory legislation against its own citizenry). But I digress. Given that lake of cheap labour of course Mr Rich Entrepreneur will rigidly adhere to paying minimum wage and employ through agencies to avoid such overheads as sick pay, maternity leave and annual leave. If you were a shareholder of his company, wouldn't you expect that and criticise him - possibly sack him - if he did otherwise? It's not really the entrepreneurs you should be blaming but those who invest in their companies, such as maybe you privately or through your (employers') pension scheme and overseas investors who could care less about employment conditions in the UK. But I do maintain that foreign companies like Google and Amazon should be required to contribute more to the nation's exchequer. Oh and by the way, who said there's no right to vote in a communist country? There are elections in North Korea at which voting is mandatory and there were certainly elections in soviet satellite states such as Poland where there were even choices of candidates!
I have always believed that there is a need for entrepreneurs and it is up to governments to set things up optimally, in terms of taxation and other conditions of remuneration / employment. Getting the balance right is the key. I agree that zero hours contracts need sorting out - eliminating. It surprises me that they have been allowed to flourish.
I agree but would you seriously trust politicians to set things up such that the country as a whole benefits? I'm not sure that is possible; too many vested interests on all sides. unfortunately.
