Hockey_saint

None to hand, idle speculation mostly but it was official labour policy. I would like to see the statistics which backed up labour's official stance back then. But I would suggest that instead of allowing a lot of eastern european migrants to take low paid work, the government should focus on a lot of them who have a lot of highly professional skills to offer but who's qualifications are not seen as equiv here.

It was Labour policy until Bevan had a change of mind. It is hurting the British workforce and by ignoring this Labour got slaughtered it's a fact whether you are a UKIP voter or not. Ironically, the only people I see benefiting from this are ilk of the current cabinet...Which is rather odd since they want a referendum.

Depends on your interpretation of "extreme" or whether you'd think he was or not if you became one of his targets. I think most of the former workers of industrialised Britain would think anyone who ardently believes in the twisted policies of the milk snatcher of whom her own party toppled because of her views which were most certainly not centre right, but more verging on the far (well, her policies were based on those of Enoch Powell) right. But then, I'm an old fashioned type. *Also, I think you'll find "extremist" is a word a LOT of the right wingers in the tory party call anyone with a whiff of socialistic views these days. So, please, let's not play the blind man here.

From the Daily Mail no less. By the way, when I worked on minimum wage, I never claimed tax credits although I know a few people who did. I'm afraid removing them isn't the answer although I would like to see the millionaires who run this government survive on it. Nice to see they're sticking to type however. I never did agree with Nick Clegg except when he said that David Cameron could be worked with but Osborne is an indoctrinated Thatcherite extremist who should be nowhere near the reins of power as most of what he's said is politically motivated and targeted at the left. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3150897/Minimum-wage-DOUBLE-12-hour-families-live-without-tax-credits.html

I worked at John Lewis for a number of years on just above minimum wage. You are aware of Spedan Lewis's marvelous anti-communistic wheeze right? essentially they get a bit of a bonus (which in no way makes up for their retail wages being just above minimum wage) whilst nepotism in the Lewis family happened until about 20 years ago when the chairman wasn't a family member and of course, John Lewis grows large on inflated prices because, frankly, it knows it's middle-class-tory-voting customers will lap up their "traditionalist" values. I digress, but simply put, people that use the partnership as a great example of fairness to workers know bugger all about how the partnership works (I did my bachelor's thesis on this).

Sounds about right though. Their government suggest one thing and tons of their citizens consider it oppressive and do completely the opposite...Kinda what they do isn't it?

As did New Zealand, as did Australia, India, Burma, South Africa, Rhodesia (actually, man for man Rhodesia, as a percentage of the population contributed the most), Kenya, Nyasaland, The carribean countries and they all mostly realised they were members of the British Empire and felt British (which they were). This does remind me of whenever you talk about history it has to have something to do with a North American event when, it might surprise you to know, that this continent was actually a small part of a global sphere of activity. I have no problem with you calling them Canadian and I am fully aware of the Irish/Patriot incursions into Canada by people like McKenzie but if they were against people like George Washington (a Minor royal himself....Game of Thrones surprisingly explains his family quite well....think of the Blackfires) then they were pro-Britain so in that respect, I and most other people would happily call them British subjects/citizens.

My point is that they did not break away from the "Patriots" because they wanted to be Canadian or Citizens of the United States now did they? They wanted to be British. My point was, ok, you can call them Canadian and upper and lower Canada existed as an identity but they fought because they wanted to be British and not whatever the Canadians think of themselves as today ok? got it. No disrespect to Canada but the country only officially stopped allowing the UK to amend or block laws passed down and repatriate them to Canada in '82.

It would be if people didn't keep on thinking of yesterday with today's eyes. Canada as a name existed yes and I suppose you could call them honorary Canadians since they were situated in the general area but they were very much British because if they weren't, then what would be the point of it all?

Also not strictly true. They were beaten by members of militia raised by the colonial government of British North America (I've seen General Brock's statue. It was British soldiers who marched all the way down to Washington to offer an agreement but when one was not forthcoming and were fired at, burned the place down. A friend of mine's ancestors were members of the Irish Foot brigade that WALKED...jesus, WALKED all the way from what is now Toronto to Washington DC (Jeez, it took me 10 hours by train!) to deliver that to them. We were all members of the British Empire back then (one of my ancestors was probably there too) so it's ok to get into this "They were Canadians eh?" lark but in the end, they were more likely a diverse range of English, Welsh, North American Loyalists and Irish...plus, probably some hired Germans. I will say though, that in the UK, colour has been "color" much longer than it's ever had a U in it. Unfortunately, it was us that "bastardized" the English language in an effort to sound more French.

I think you misunderstand however what I am saying about the link between Washington and Rhodesia. You see, that's another myth. George Washington was until the day he died a brit. That essentially the problem the rhodesians and the US founding fathers both thought they were more British than britons themselves....when it turns out we're not actually a bunch of arse-wiping slave-owning quasi nazis....only the right wing politicians here mostly....either way, you're wrong, Washington lost more battles than he won. It was a confederation of european states that wore Britain down until it decided those 13 colonies were not worth it and as you know...buggered up north....seriously dont turn into a yank in think we were beaten and driven out of America because that's wrong.

Ooops..it's been a while since I've been on here and forgotten that you're a Canuck. Anyhow, let me clear a couple of things up: 1. It doesn't matter if you are a racist or not. The people of the states still seem to think these slave-owners were heros and I don't think such bitterness will change there until there is a clear understanding that they were in fact wrong. 2. South Africa was not exactly a problem created by Britain. When Britain undertook to abolish slavery (long before the US) it had a settlement in Southern Africa that it had won from the Dutch but their citizens made up a large proportion of the population and THEY were slavers and would violently attack the British if they outright banned the practise of owning slaves so what happened was that a compromise was made whereby the blacks would no longer be slaves but would require a pass to enter a (mainly Afrikaaner) city. This lead to Apartheid eventually but it was not as direct as you may have asserted. Rhodesia? This was a private enterprise by Cecil Rhodes directly against the orders of the British crown not to invate Matebeleland actually. They (the DeBeers and South African Police...Rhodes's private army) tricked their king to sign a document and worded it so that neither their king or our queen or government could contest it. As a private company Rhodesia allowed very little control for the British government and when the policy of NIBMAR (No Independence Before Majority African Rule) was introduced by Britain the Rhodesian from declared a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI, that's what Washington would have used if the word was invented back then). We could not invade, our military was weak and our politicians will to fight a war we knew nothing of the territory so we sanction them and made the illegal country a pariah state. I wouldn't call that Britain's fault but rather private enterprise (something the US knows a lot about, in fact Frederick Burnham, an American, was critical in securing the land for Rhodes). So actually no, you are a bit off there. 3. Obama was "just white enough" was a common term used by the US right. If he was as black as his wife, he probably would never have gotten in. The country has not changed THAT much. 4. As an Englishman, so did I. I was in DC when he was sworn in. 5. He has been a disappointment because he could never match up to the hopes and aspirations of so many people. Nothing to do with his skin...he's also been a bit rubbish but then he's pretty much only a hollow speaker, very good with words and not so good with actions. 6. The slaves were brought there as the rich slave owners wanted them and there was a very big market for them. Britain understood financially how much North America was worth to it so it would do most things to try and appease the rich landed gentry across the pond. There were no slaves in Britain itself but lets not defend Britain on that point but these rich men were, however much they argue otherwise. British so they were as much of the problem as you insinuate that Britain was. Also, how many slave owners do you actually think lived in England? Do even seriously think it was as endemic in Britain as it was North America? or the Caribean? Nope, it was mostly the plaything of the rich who buggered off abroad and that pretty much excluded most of the population of Britain. Something you North Americans forget. I that clears a few things up.

This is a tricky one isn't it? About the kid that shot up the church. Sarnia won't thank me for this but he WAS pictured wearing the flags of Apartheid South Africa and Ian Smith's Rhodesia. Now, I know a lot about Smith's Rhodesia (The second group of rebellious Anglo farmers to unilaterally declare independence from the crown...whilst simultainiously crap on the lives of the blacks who they saw simply as good and cheap labour). I think it's a great big white elephant that can't be sorted. They quasi-worship men who were very much like Smith (duplicitous in that they wanted freedom and liberation whilst denying that to the native population the blacks...claiming that every man is equal but some simply are not men so they can't be) and whilst yes,they have a black man in office it has never healed that wound of how the country was founded. I mean, if I was an African American, it would certainly slightly rancour on me that I had to stare at the photos of men who would open enslave my ancestors. I'm just trying to not touch on gun control as it is a big issue but I think realising that something like a truth and reconciliation thing has to happen and come to the understanding that the founders of the country were not infallible, they started this road of discrimination (most were Virginian slave traders) and as soon as that happens I think it might at least help the situation a bit because mental kids like this, whilst on top of being a souther zealot clearly, by his 2 flags seemed to think that treating people as nothing because of the colour of their skin is somehow right and I speculate it drives at the very heart of the nation itself. An unspoken problem if you will.

See, that's the thing I can't get my head around: "how can you call yourself a country without control of your own borders?"

See, it's interesting to mention Tony Benn because; whilst yes, I am a labourite, I do not understand how they could go from the opinion that we should stay out of the EU as it "would hurt the livelihoods of British workers" to their current view of essentially sneering at anyone who would want out of it and I think that cost them a serious amount of votes and obviously they realise this now.

I heard about that today....what type of an idiot thought that would be a good idea?

Now why would we want the inland revenue to forget about it?.....nup, keep reminding them so that if they make one tiniest slip up again, they can try....and maybe succeed this time.

None whatsoever....it should be removed from the record books entirely.

And they still cling to this.....really? was it worth it?

They do (I don't live too far from there)....They also appear to co-exist very well with the rather large drug rehabilitation unit there too! (I only know this because sometimes round where I live you get people who are quite clearly crackheads asking how to get to seagarth lane).

Whilst yes, that is disturbing (I've heard of a few cases similar) but honestly? 9 months? Also, please remember that PIP is (or should be) an in-work benefit so actually, it shouldn't be PIP they were attempting to claim (if it was, it could be suggested that in that 9 months they should get at least a part time job to cover some costs) It should have been ESA. If I'm honest, that article does nothing to explain to you or I the difference between in work disability benefits and out of work ones.

Minimum wage is an interesting one actually. The local councils have an amount they consider the living wage of which they use to calculate how much, say, housing benefit someone should be entitled to towards accommodation. Doing a 37 hour week with pay that exceeds the minimum by quite some distance, I can tell you now that whatever this "living wage" is, it's higher than 8 pounds an hour over a 37 hour shift so hypo, even if you were paying this rate of 8 pounds an hour, if your workers were getting that amount, their rents would still be subsidised so I suppose it's more about the cost of living than how much people get an hour anyhow.

It's not. Not all the conservative party's policies are bad. I still think the tax rates could be tweaked a bit, like those on over 15k a year who move from virtually no taxation to 20% I think they levels could made so it's more gradual (I only say this because, as you know, once a member of staff gets a but more, at a certain level, most is taken away in tax any how).

I grant you, some examples of cost-saving can be good for society; for example saving some money in the name of "care in the community" under Thatcher and getting a lot of disabled kids into mainstream education which was also a back-handed way of saving on education bills but I would just suggest there have to be many other avenues for saving money than removing from those who essentially cannot fight back. Still, like the new minister for the disabled; under the freedom of information act you can now see what they previously voted for or against so what smart fellow in the current government DIDN'T look at the files of a fair few of the new "anti" ministers and say "oohh, you voted against the caveat to allow disabled people to be discounted from the single bedroom tax and voted against benefits for chronically ill children....You'll be perfect for disabilities minister!" really, you wouldn't credit it, surely they know this stuff is in the public domain?

Also, you'll get a completely unbiased view from government documentation wont you?