Britain's Climate change police killing it's elderly citizens

You said: “Council houses were sold off to tenants & local councils were not allowed to use the proceeds for further building.” So, if the local soviets didn't use the money for creating more housing, what happened to all that money?

 

Because we haven't had 'liberal economic policies' since 2010: we've had right-wing austerity. And that is why retirees on state pensions and others on low incomes can't afford to heat their houses

[CP with Righteous Temperance, to whom: local councils (why use a Russian translation?) were only allowed by Conservative governments to keep reinvest 10% of the proceeds of sale in building more housing; the remaining 90% was recycled into the general council budgets....which then gave the Tories the excuse to say, "Aha! You have all this money now, so you don't need any from central government" = more austerity: the Conservatives cut the funding grants from central government and imposed a cap on local taxes...which they continued once the council houses were sold off and the money ran out...so local services like Meals on Wheels for the elderly and public libraries had to be cut]

 

It is a good thing that Christians will take up the slack and help these poor folks with meals.

 

Not only Christians - there are many of all religious belief or none who care for those poorer than themselves & in need. And, sadly, many professed Christians including our CofE Conservative Prime Minister who appears uncaring. We all have a God-given conscience & sense of compassion.

I have attended Socialist/folk occasions where proceeds were to the Trussell Trust which I was unaware of its Christian origin until I read it on this forum.

 

Government has failed. It was a mistake to trust government to care. It is the natural tendency for government to be corrupt and self serving.

Take public housing. Great intentions, help the poor. The contracts go to politically connected people who are not looking to help, but to make as much money as possible. The builders do shoddy work, use the cheapest material, hire inexperienced workers so they can pay less and so on. The costs are always more than projected, but since the government is paying (other people's money) the mindset is "I'm gonna get mine because I pay taxes".

The poor are placed in these facilities that are poorly insulated and poorly built and in need of constant repair. The liberals get to pat themselves on the back because they have "helped the poor" with other people's money.

The liberals go on to pass laws to save the world from climate change, which raises the costs of heating your home, which is already poorly insulated and poorly constructed because of corruption.

The elderly poor freeze to death because of liberal good intentions while the liberals live in their nice homes with solar panels paid for with other peoples money.

The liberals then blame conservatives for all the problems.

 

The other side of that coin: Alan Molineaux

 

Why then do you support your government??

How does America solve the problem of poor people without the means of relieving their poverty?

 

Government cannot solve that problem. Solving poverty involves poor people becoming self sufficient. No better way to live. Government cannot make someone self sufficient. Only the free market can do that.

 

In the U.S. we have spent trillions of dollars in a "war on poverty" since the 1960's. Poverty levels essentially remain the same. Liberals have a mindset, despite the historic failures, that we just need to spend more (other people's) money.

Rev Mitchell is correct. Government cannot solve the issue of poverty.

There is a role for government, but it is limited.

 

Margaret Thatcher's great achievement - public ownership of national resources.

Selling shares in publicly owned utilities - which were sold on to big corporations.

 

Your point?

 

All our utilities are now run at a profit by foreign corporations - the great Tory sell-off has passed control to corporations that have no interest in their customers - who have nowhere else to turn for these services.

In the "olden days" any profits reduced taxes. Now they just make foreigners rich.

 

Are you referring to other Europeans as foreigners? And I thought you were some sort of globalist.

Maybe you are closer to being a nationalist like Trump than you thought.

 

Yes, being ready to adjust to the inevitable changes when returning from failed socialism to capitalism would be difficult at best. Ross Perot offered to take the USA through some austerity to get it out of debt, but not many takers--neither major party was interested.

As for the term “soviets” in lieu of “councils,” you might just as well ask why use Soviet in translating СССР, but I thought you might appreciate the comradery.

 

Politicize, huh? You speak of paying taxes and receiving government grants, brag about the good old days of socialism that obviously failed you miserably, complain about the current political state of affairs, then all of a sudden act like the discussion is pure mathematics?

How about directly, thoughtfully, and honestly replying to the question? If you consider it your own money, then why should it be called a grant? If it is not your money, then are you not taking other people’s money?

 

Outrageous corruption. All natural resources of a country are owned by the citizens of that country. Any private businesses accessing those resources should be 100% owned and run by citizens for the benefit of that nation.

Does this arraignment have anything to do with belonging to EU?

BTW, the US does the same thing with some of our resources.

 

The EU is not guilty - the EU railways are nationalised - and journeys are MUCH cheaper

 

BAD, really bad - "national" (and all its forms) The marxist GetTrump Word-of-the-Month.

 

'Soviet' is only one of the four words in 'CCCP/SSSR'. It's what the second 'S' stands for. And your comparison of UK democratically elected local councils to Communist-controlled Soviets silly: you might as well compare your State legislatures to Soviet Republics; it makes about as much sense.

 

Yes, it is no more than an association, and perhaps not quite fair. The word “soviet” is a transliteration instead of a translation in USSR. And they did end up being communist in ideology, if not in name. But that last S in USSR stands for Socialist, right? Not all soviets were Bolshevik to begin with.

As for comparison with our own system, well, the tyranny of democracy is not a good solution either, but that is what the Democrats here push for, an enforced socialism & good riddance to the republic. OPM is the opiate of the masses. Of course, the masses will only get “their” cut after the elite siphon off what they want. But eventually, Other People’s Money will run out. And then austerity will be the rule.