Game_Over

Saying I'm not going to respond is not a response.

It would have been viable before Labour flooded the SE with economic migrants. IMO Labour have no incentive to do anything about deprived areas, because if they do, they will just end up losing seats. Simple as that

It means that, largely due to improvements in transport and communications we now have a global economy. As a result it is almost impossible to ignore globalisation. The left wing alternative, which I suppose would be trade barriers, or a National Socialist Festung Europa is unlikely to work, unless of course we start machine gunning economic migrants. Gets really boring if everything has to be explained in minute detail.

This is so far from reality it is not worth my time responding beyond saying it's not worth my time

I had an idea to buy two plots of land then when you get evicted from one simply move to the other then when you get evicted from that move back to the first I'm pretty sure a local authority would get bored with this after a while

We are all Socialists now So disaster is inevitable

People in these areas lost their jobs as a result of global competition but Labour told them it was a deliberate Tory policy to punish the working classes so these people sat tight and waited for the next Labour government to come along and rescue them. Of course when Labour eventually got voted back in, the trap these people are in got even bigger. The moral of the story is, if you sit around and wait for the government to come and save you, you will wait forever. If you want a better life you have got to take responsibility for your own destiny and do something about it. Existing on benefits in a post industrial wasteland waiting for Left wing politicians to transform your life is like waiting for Santa Claus to drop down your chimney. Tories Bad, Labour Good Baa, baa, baa

It's pretty hard not to be globalist when we live on a globe. And I'm not convinced that adopting 'Flat Earth Policies' will actually change the reality of the situation.

I live on the borders of leafy Cheshire, not far from Stoke-on-Trent I go into Stoke to get PC components. When Labour got back in power SOT was a sh*thole and guess what - after 13 Labour boom years it was an even bigger sh*thole. If you transported the entire population of SOT to Gaza, you would improve their living conditions. The people of SOT would vote in Adolf Hitlers corpse if you pinned a Labour rosette to it, because they know that the Tories are evil bastards who will keep them in poverty because they hate ordinary people. They know this because this has been drummed into their tiny brains for decades and the process is still going on. So who represents this solid Labour working class constituency? The son of a redundant pottery worker who toils day and night to improve the lot of the people? Err........ Tristram Hunt, Cambridge educated, son of a Labour Party Apparatchik who himself was elevated to the peerage by Tony Blair. At the end of the day, people get the Governments and lives they deserve.

What should have been done is all the unemployed in the old industrial areas should have been offered housing in the SE instead of importing millions of migrant workers this of course would have cost Labour many seats as constituencies were merged due to falling populations. At the end of the day Labour needs these areas of deprivation in order for them to gain power so the chances of Labour doing anything about them is Zero.

Apparently she lived entirely on milk extracted from babies via some sort of fiendish mangle device

I really don't like the guy or the coalition government because they are just fiddling while Rome burns However, most politicians have an eye on history and Cameron would probably prefer to fade into obscurity than go down as the Prime Minister who ended hundreds of years of freedom of the press. Of course Labour and the Liberals are all for it as you would expect. As to the Government's economic policy, they are doing all they possibly can without actually addressing the fundamental issues but no one else would do any more or any different. The best we can hope for is decades of stagnation and falling living standards the worst is complete economic and social collapse

2030 looks very optimistic to me.

More garbage. Clearly if you have built an economy on people spending money they haven't got at some point the whole house of cards is going to collapse. The idea that Government's should now run up even more debt in order to reflate a collapsing debt bubble is ludicrous. There are only two choices - massive pain now and probably for the next 10-20 years Or - another 5-10 years of fantasy left wing debt fuelled stagnation followed by complete economic and social collapse, including, sadly, national conflicts / revolutions / military coups / civil wars / ethnic cleansing and concentration camps. The choice is yours. We have been here before and there is absolutely nothing to stop it happening again.

This is why Cameron is so concerned about state control of the press. The next Labour government will completely destroy our economy and society and in the process we will come as close as we have ever come to a police state IMO. The left already have a stranglehold on most of our institutions, including the judiciary, once the free press is gone there is not much left to stand in their way the BBC are impartial don't ya know - provided you are slightly to the left of Karl Marx.

This perfectly illustrates the sum total of your contribution to any discussion on this site.

TBH I don't really blame people for not working when they can live better on benefits. And although I found the situation very annoying and demotivating, I blame the system and the people who set it up and really benefit from it, not those unknowingly trapped by it. We must be the first society in history that actually pays millions of young, able bodied people to do nothing, as far as I am aware even 100% Socialist states expect everyone who can work to do so. This is what annoys me when people defend the welfare state, because it is indefensible and those trapped in empty, pointless lives by it are just used as human shields by the people who control the system and in effect live off their misery. Similarly, blaming bankers for the inevitable economic and social collapse is simplistic in the extreme and completely misses the reality of what has happened over the last 20-30 years.

Watched the entire series and found it quite interesting however, the cost of these projects ended up negating the point to some extent if you spend silly amounts of money you can achieve anything Perhaps the series should have been called 'how to get an incredible small space for the cost of a perfectly acceptable large space'.

My guess is that when it became obvious that Labour might lose the election 10's of thousands of extra posts were created that were never filled you can then remove these posts (public sector job cuts) and increase the grades of those remaining while showing a nominal saving in wages this results in jobs (posts) being cut while at the same time peoples real wages rise (despite pay freeze) Simples

Basically it doesn't matter what most ordinary people save or pay into a pension the bastards are going to steal every penny you have, one way or another so the best thing is to ensure you are poor, then they have to give you everything for free. And if we end up in the situation where they let you freeze or starve then all bets are off anyway because the whole thing will have gone completely Mad Max well before this point.

As I said I was born in 1961 and my wife in 1962 - so technically 'boomers' When my wife started paying NI aged 16 she had to pay full stamp and was promised a pension at age 60 she is now looking at 68 and this will no doubt rise to 70 before we (hopefully) get to that age. We had to endure bread queues, power cuts and constant strikes and had to find work in the last Labour recession. We then took Thatchers medicine and the country recovered slightly but now my daughter has been hit with 9k tuition fees so has not gone to Uni this year. We were very lucky as she secured a rare as hen's teeth position as a trainee accountant with a blue chip company. The people who's kids got free university education were the fortunate ones IMO which again challenges the lucky 'boomer' stereotype. As I said, personally I think the years in the definition are way out.

Speaking as a boomer I packed in work because I was sick of paying for single mothers living the life of Riley on my taxes. You could make an argument that if the younger generation worked as hard as the older generation did there would be plenty of money to pay for pensions. Personally I think the welfare state destroyed the work ethic in our society and removed the incentive for many people to better themselves in fact the welfare state penalises most people if they attempt to better themselves. A bit off topic, but it is just another way of looking at how we got where we are now. Either way it is clear that there is no painless way out of the situation so it is really now just a question of who pays and the answer is probably all of us.

Guilty.

Just as a matter of interest, I was born in 1961, so does that make me a 'boomer' ? I think I am probably on the boundary between guilty and victim

Don't necessarily disagree, the point I was making is that it is unfair to blame the people who are now being robbed. They were lied to the same way we are being lied to now. If people who worked for 30-40 years are the cause of our problems what share of the blame should entire generations of families who have never worked in their lives take?