Party political Broadcast

[sarahxxx]

But at the end of the day politicians decide these things and all we can do is kick them out when we don't agree.

You can't blame me, I don't vote.... Now there's another argument!

Sarah

[Hicky]

But at the end of the day politicians decide these things and all we can do is kick them out when we don't agree.

You can't blame me, I don't vote.... Now there's another argument!

Sarah

Then you can hardly complain!!

[SassyAnn]

I don't mind giving money to people who are starving or malnourished, homeless etc through no fault of their own - not matter where they are in the world.
I do object to the amount of money thrown away on benefits given to people who claim to be single parents but live with a partner, people who claim to be disabled and yet are more robust than my 87 year old friend etc etc. Basically people that our taxes support who DON'T deserve anything from us as they are doing better than most anyway.

Also, all the money wasted on implementing projects that are subsequently scrapped, managers rather than workers (ie. NHS), illegal immigrants who kill or harm citizens but then can't be deported, criminals in prison who have a better quality of life than a lot of people who have not committed a crime. I could go on!

[davidseven]

But at the end of the day politicians decide these things and all we can do is kick them out when we don't agree.

You can't blame me, I don't vote.... Now there's another argument!

Sarah

Then you can hardly complain!!

But as parliament is subservient to the EU occupying yoke, What is the point of our vote?
Blair or Cameron, all bow down to their masters in Brussels. None of us have a voice at the moment. Now there's another argument!

[Phil_Hants]

... Also, all the money wasted on implementing projects that are subsequently scrapped, managers rather than workers (ie. NHS), illegal immigrants who kill or harm citizens but then can't be deported, criminals in prison who have a better quality of life than a lot of people who have not committed a crime. I could go on!

especially agree with the bit in bold. It's disgusting that 12 billion pounds was wasted on the computer system that was meant link GP surgeries and hospitals before they gave up on it. What on earth did they spend it all on?

While we're about it: foreign students getting to attend Scottish universities for free, while English students get charged nine grand a year. What other nation would treat its own citizens this way?

[English Kate]

I totally agree with Monty about how irrating it is when a millionaire politician (or any politician) tells me how my taxes should be sent. I would certainly rather that my taxes (and far more than is spent in foreign aid) were not spent bombing and invading countries just co they happen to have oil reserves (Iraq and Lybia) or to attack people we armed in the first place (Afganistan). Indeed I was miffed at paying for a millenium dome and don't want to shell out for the olympics. But at the end of the day politicians decide these things and all we can do is kick them out when we don't agree.

I work in some very poor area's of this country which could badly do with extra resources but which seem very unlikely to get it in the near future. But weather you agree with the humanity of supporting very poor countries and reducing premature death and extreme poverty or not there are very good economic arguements for supporting people in their own countries. In an increasingly globalised world the consquences of not doing so is that people will migrate and end up in the west including this country. All studies would suggest it is far far cheaper to support people in their own countries than cope with them landing on our own doorstep. And before anyone says no one should be allowed to leave their own country when faced with poverty and starvation lots of people will risk everything to save their family - who on here would not do the same?

A bit like Royalty, I do feel that the government should remain impartial on some matters. I wonder why they have decided to single out and support this particular charity and if it is due to the fear they may all jump ship for the UK? If this is the case then they should be honest and explain their theory fully.

I'm sure there are many other ways that the governement can support charities without being in the front line. For me it feels very abstract and I just can't imagine any other Priminister doing it and for very good reason. It definitely begs of an ulterior motive.

[MrSmith767]

If you want monumental balls ups, how about the 40 RAF Harriers that were mothballed by the ConDem government. They cost £30 million pounds each, they had all just been upgraded with new engines and instruments at about £7 million each, and the government quietly sold them ALL for £34million (the price of 1 aircraft)

[Hicky]

I totally agree with Monty about how irrating it is when a millionaire politician (or any politician) tells me how my taxes should be sent. I would certainly rather that my taxes (and far more than is spent in foreign aid) were not spent bombing and invading countries just co they happen to have oil reserves (Iraq and Lybia) or to attack people we armed in the first place (Afganistan). Indeed I was miffed at paying for a millenium dome and don't want to shell out for the olympics. But at the end of the day politicians decide these things and all we can do is kick them out when we don't agree.

I work in some very poor area's of this country which could badly do with extra resources but which seem very unlikely to get it in the near future. But weather you agree with the humanity of supporting very poor countries and reducing premature death and extreme poverty or not there are very good economic arguements for supporting people in their own countries. In an increasingly globalised world the consquences of not doing so is that people will migrate and end up in the west including this country. All studies would suggest it is far far cheaper to support people in their own countries than cope with them landing on our own doorstep. And before anyone says no one should be allowed to leave their own country when faced with poverty and starvation lots of people will risk everything to save their family - who on here would not do the same?

A bit like Royalty, I do feel that the government should remain impartial on some matters. I wonder why they have decided to single out and support this particular charity and if it is due to the fear they may all jump ship for the UK? If this is the case then they should be honest and explain their theory fully.

I'm sure there are many other ways that the governement can support charities without being in the front line. For me it feels very abstract and I just can't imagine any other Priminister doing it and for very good reason. It definitely begs of an ulterior motive.

I think you are maybe crediting this government with more intelligence than they deserve. As far as I can judge they are the most monumentally stupid people to ever govern this country and thats saying something.

[SassyAnn]

Ohhh Hicky, that is a claim! How the heck can you tell?

[iluvjem]

I don't mind giving money to people who are starving or malnourished, homeless etc through no fault of their own - not matter where they are in the world.
I do object to the amount of money thrown away on benefits given to people who claim to be single parents but live with a partner, people who claim to be disabled and yet are more robust than my 87 year old friend etc etc. Basically people that our taxes support who DON'T deserve anything from us as they are doing better than most anyway.

Oh don't get me started on benefits. I used to work for a bank and everyone I spoke to seemed to get some sort of benefit or tax credit. Be self employed, propping up the rest of society you get diddly squat! Of course working for the bank I wasn't self employed just part of a couple and you get nothing for that either lol