|
|
"Labour inherited a country where every possible nationalised industry was privatised."
Because, as nationalised companies they were overmanned, unprofitable and didn't offer the services the public required.
"Giving the.working class people the chance to buy their council house "
Two reasons for doing so. Firstly there was an unaffordable burden on the state as landlord to upgrade and maintain these homes. Central heating, double glazing, insulation, the new white goods. All at a time when the country needed to spend millions on changing from a pre-war infrastructure to a post-war infrastructure (such as building motorways).
Secondly, owning a house is apparently £250K cheaper over a lifetime than paying rent, even council rents. Do you feel people shouldn't be allowed to choose the cheaper , more enriching way of life?
"While we're on the subject of wars, who was the first government to take us to war in Iraq?"
The United Nations? Britain was fulfilling an obligation to the UN in 1990, in much the same way as it did in Korea in the fifties. Unless of course you are talking about 1941 (the Anglo-Iraq war) when Churchill was in power with a conservative led coalition.
"Cutting the welfare system, which due to the masses of job cuts ----which means guess what... More borrowing!! "
Unless you are suggesting that the people who have lost 'welfare' jobs (ie, were on the government payroll) were earning less than they will get in welfare payments, then the government's bill will shrink.
"whilst public services are being annihilated,"
They aren't. The Government is still spending more on public services than the Labour government did. What has happened is that the rate of increasing that spending has been slowed down.
"Write a £40,000E cheque a year to anyone registered a millionaire. "
Unfortunately, it was found that the cost of billing those millionaires for £40k was £41k, so it hardly made economic sense did it?
"Seem fair to you does it?!"
There are lots of 'unfairnesses'. For example, one in 5 council houses are occupied by people who don't need 'social' housing, each one of them costing the country an average £8k a year. Since there are more than 5 times as many 'unfair' tenants than there are millionaires, it would seem logical to get them paying their fair share first.
Besides, in the long run each of the "unfair" tenants getting their own house would be saving £250k. (And think, you could tax them for being rich too!)
|
|
|
