Wow britboy, I have to say, after reading your entire point-for-point reply on my post, and whilst admiring your effort for doing so, I am forced to conclude that you are a complete moron. Sorry, nothing personal.
First let me clarify one thing. I do not and haven't ever read the Daily Mail apart from maybe a glimpse of the front page at a news stand display. If you must know, I read the Metro on the way to work (yes, I have a job; shockingly I didn't inherit £50million), and I read the Evening Standard on the way back home from work. I find the fact that you assumed I'm a Daily Mail reader from my views as not only insulting, but also rather pathetic. Furthermore, I read most BBC news online articles on almost a daily basis, and I discuss politics with my friends (who are both lefty's and righty's) frequently. I'm certain it is fair to say that I have a balanced view on what is going on in the UK, and have a solid grasp of English comprehension, which is more than what I can say for you, based on what you have written. Allow me to elaborate...
Some schemes work, some schemes don't. I saw an interview with the owners of google and they were saying less than 10% of the 'Friday projects' ever make it to market. Less than 10%. One of the most successful companies on the planet. But you'd rather go for let's just not try in case it doesn't work 
Way to go for the future there fella! Let's try NOTHING in case it fails. In the 60s presumably you'd have been the most vehoment opponent of the space-program as they 'probably wouldn't' get to the moon. As for the super-collider .. cancel cancel cancel as it may not work. What a depressing way to proceed.
Google is an entrepreneurial company with a completely different organisational model to a country's government. To make such a comparison between a government and an online search engine is comical at best. But let's humour your thoughts here for the sake of argument. Can you please point out where in my point I suggested the conservatives should not start
any new projects? Wait, you can't, because that isn't what I said. Straw man argument. Fail. My point was that Labour is frivolous with our money and are not wise spenders. The Tories would take better steps to ensure they don't throw away billions. I never said we should cancel everything.
blah blah... you must read the daily mail... oh the poor children... blah blah... if I have 9 kids they will all suffer ... blah blah ... daily mail(again)... innocent kids suffering (again)... blah blah... hmm maybe you must be part of the 'they should be sterilised' brigade... blah blah blah... hire big burly men...blah blah...operations on members of the public... blah blah... big burly men could wear some kind of uniforms with'SS' written on their hats... blah blah...oh yeah also if we remove benefits then people will just steal from us because they go hungry...blah blah...the poor children(again)
Wow. So you didn't read anything of what I actually said did you? I don't even know where to begin as I was laughing so hard on this one. I barely mentioned child benefits, and you made that the main focus of your argument. Way to sensationalise! I noticed you didn't try to refute my observation that scumbag spongers can earn £55k/year for free? Your mouse scrollwheel must have slipped on that one eh?
Firstly I think you are generally confusing the local council with central government. Secondly central government has never created jobs that do not have a defined purpose. So let's see your plan: 1) The workers arn't working hard enough. OK, well the way private sector keeps workers working is by getting more managers, introducing work-flow tools, reporting to find out where the problem is etc. 2) There are far too many managers. Er .. complete logical problem. Sack the managers, the workers will run riot. Seems again like a bit of a daily mail rant without considering the implications of your 'sack the managers, can the beaurocracy and magically expect the workers to pick up their game' strategy. It'd be lovely though, if we weren't in the real world.
Firstly, local councils are appointed authority of power by the central government. The central government still oversee what they do, otherwise what would be the point of having a government in the first place? Secondly you are talking out of your bum. Also, where the hell did you read me saying "sack the managers" ? Daily mail rant? Come on man, talk about grasping for straws. You read what I say (hopefully), then projected your own warped conclusions of my meanings. Why "hire more managers" exactly? Is that your solution to everything when nobody's getting work done? Just hire more people and hope the problem solves itself? Jesus, no wonder you're a Labour supporter.
All countries economys are in a mess. Us more than some because we rely on the financial sector, mainly because we are pretty rubbish at doing much else (for example we were always pretty rubbish at steel). The strength of the pound comment made me smile when mentioned in the same paragraph as 'imports' as obviously the cheaper the pound is, the more we export! It's not 'The more expensive the pound is the better', and it never has been. Read carefully - so many of our manufacturing companies have moved overseas because the pound has been too expensive, making British products too expensive to foreigners to buy. The pound gets devalued, and somehow you now state thats also a problem. Jees. Just give us a clue, what value do YOU want the pound? Remember, the more expensive it is, the more expensive our exports are. What do you want? Or is it just 'er .. whatever Labour does is magically wrong'
What value do I want the pound? Higher rather than lower please. Manufacturing companies still have to import a lot of their supplies anyway. And so what? If these companies want to move abroad then thats their decision, pretty sure not all these companies moved for exporting reasons though (now you have to ask why else would they have left a Labour governed country if not due to the weak pound)? Regardless, funny to see how you avoided the point again. I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Well I have spent considerable time in central London and none of their schools are full of immigrants. Your insinuation that 'English is their second language = they are bad at English' is also a bit naive. This whole point seems a bit daily mail and has hyperbole and invented problems spilling out of all sides of it so not really worth addressing.
Wow, so you sat down and spoke to every kid in every school in central london to ask if they were an immigrant? How long did that take?
I'll tell you what's really not worth addressing, you making something up. With some more "daily mail" bs to boot. I love how you are now using "daily mail" as an adjective.
*facepalms*
Ramble ramble... isn't logic fun?
I was referring to the expenses scandals, genius. Oh and by the way, blowing a bubble only to burst it later doesn't make you a legend.
Nice long story about some guy who inherited £50m and spent his money on what he wanted. How dare he decide what do with money that is legally his!
This is the classic argument I always hear when discussing inheritance tax. Always with the "aristocrats who inherited a monster fortune" stories. What about John Smith the widower who owns a £1m house after working his arse off for 50+ years? The mortgage was finally paid for in full, his 3 sons are working full time but cannot yet afford to buy their own property and so they share the house with their loving father. John Smith has a heart attack and sadly passes away, leaving the house to his 3 sons. A couple of weeks later Mr Brown comes knocking on the door, "sorry boys, but we the government want £270k. Cough it up otherwise we're taking the house that your father has already paid for with his hard earned money". I mean how dare these 3 sons receive a house from their father and expect to keep it, what SCUMBAGS!
hmm. Is she also 'a big snake'?
I take from your lack of response you agree with me on this one. I am still yet to find a single person who disagrees with the sentiment that Jacqui Smith was the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had.
If he cared not about the countries well being he'd be working in the private sector earning £5m+ by now. ...blah blah blah... If you weren't working through it take me word for it, it was AWESOME. Loads of money everywhere. Loads of jobs. The ability to rake it in. Fantastic, best time of my life for the wodja
Your "he'd be working in a private sector" argument is weak. Some people's life goals are to make money, others' goals are fame and making their mark in history. For Gordon Brown it's the latter, and it appears he will do absolutely anything to achieve it. As for jobs, lucky for you, not for others. It's funny how you talk about it like it's in the past tense as well, as if you're acknowledging that those days are long gone. Psst... Brown is still in charge!
Blah blah blah... some patronising tripe that the conservatives will take money out of the economy.
The conservatives will cut out waste (ridiculously overdue), and achieve much more with less money, as they won't be throwing buckets of money off the rooftops like Labour have been doing all this time.
On your post in general, it sounds like you have read A LOT of the daily mail... blah blah...patronising bs... Shut the daily mail... blah blah blah more obscenely condescending patronising bs...And stop reading the blimin' mail! It's poison I tells ya!
lol. That's one delusional fella right there.
So my dear friends, it seems that britboy4321 here is a shining example of the willful ignorance of this country's population. I feel entertained, patronised, and my intelligence insulted all at the same time. Interesting mix of feelings really
