When we need politicians
Government borrowing is now at record levels and cannot be sustained. What would you do? Raise taxes? Cut spending? Leave things as they are and hope for a miracle?
I have been sent previously unpublished polling data on what voters think. And the answer is... totally inconclusive. It is pretty much a three-way split with no hint of consensus.
If there is a conclusion to be drawn from this chart, it is that we cannot rely on public opinion to guide us through the financial mess. It is for exactly this kind of situation that we elect and pay our politicians: to take the difficult decisions on our behalf, to use their talents and vision so that Britain comes out on the other side as undamaged as is possible
To dismiss them all as power-hungry, money-grabbing crooks at this time really isn't helpful.
The Ipsos Mori poll does offer some clues as to what the public think the government's priorities should be.
Of those who think that some services should be protected, two candidates emerge as serious candidates for the axe - and both of them hit the poor.
Just as hundreds of thousands of people find themselves joining the dole queue, a substantial minority of the country thinks government should cut benefit payments. And just as the global recession risks consigning millions of the world's most vulnerable to total poverty, a slightly larger group think that it is the time to pull the plug on overseas aid.
It is obvious, perhaps. If cuts have to happen, voters want them to happen to others. Self-interest rules the day. Once again, it might be argued, we need smart, professional policy-makers to consider the short, medium and long-term implications of any spending changes.
The question of where to cut is a lot easier if you believe there is substantial inefficiency in the delivery of public services. On this analysis, it is possible to reduce budgets without hitting services.
The Ipsos Mori poll finds a substantial majority of people (79%) think there is so much waste in the system that, if we could only root it out, cuts to real services would be unnecessary. Hallelujah! We are saved.
This running-the-country business is much easier when you don't have to take the risks yourself, don't have to deal with the consequences and don't have to justify your mistakes. I wonder which current services voters regard as a waste of money. Where is the multi-trillion pounds' worth of profligacy and inefficiency hidden? Let me know, and I will post a memo to ministers with the top ideas. Right now, we need all the expertise we can muster.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~11~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Well, well, well! That only goes to confirm the old sayin that 'You cannot trust people. People put Hitler in power and listen to Coldplay' (Sorry, do not know who said that, cannot aknowledge them here).
P.S. When it comes to cutting funding for unnecessary services- how about cutting funding for promoting political correctness? Then we can carry on celebrating Christmas without anybody spending money on banning pictures of Rudolph, the Red-nosed Deer.
Complain about this comment
Very interesting polling data. The hostility to overseas aid is a little surprising, although perhaps less so when you consider another survey a couple of years back found "Voters vastly overestimate the share of taxpayers' money spent on overseas aid - and when they find out the true figure is less than 2 per cent, many believe that it should be increased ...respondents guessed that the government spent an average of 18.5 per cent of its budget on developing countries. After being told the real amount the government spends - 1.3 per cent in the last financial year - 35 per cent thought it was 'too little'."
Complain about this comment
Perhaps if people in the public sector could be rewarded rather than punished for saving money it may help.
I spent 7 weeks contracting in a local NHS trust, where managers were desperate to ensure the years budget was used up as otherwise they would face a budget cut the following year.
Complain about this comment
@Isenhorn
Ah the Political Correctness myth again.
Cutting imaginary budgets is indeed easier that cutting actual ones. But doing so does not yield any actual money.
Complain about this comment
I can only think that the third of people who don't want public spending cut are the third of people employed in the public sector...
Asking anyone who works in the public sector about waste seems to produce a litany of examples of it. The best thing is surely to go out and ask public service workers what waste they see, and then get rid of it, rather than speculate from an ivory tower about overpaid this and over-funded that...
The problem with swingeing public service cuts is that you move people from jobs (or non-jobs, it's still paid employment for someone) to the dole queue, and you remove business from private contractors on govt contracts. So in the short term, the economy suffers, and we know what politicians feel about the short-term.
If we want politicians to make brave longer term decisions, we should reward them as such. We complain about bankers getting bonuses for short term performance, and throw governments out after only a few years if the short-term consequences of their actions don't please us.
Complain about this comment
I must admit I don't like the question "Government spending should be reduced even if it means that spending on KEY public services should be cut." it does seem a bit biased.
The word has been added specifically to reduce people's response to the question. Next time please phrase the questions in a more neutral fashion.
I also find it amazing that 31% thought that things should be left as they are. The current position is clearly unsustainable.
Complain about this comment
They left an obvious option off the poll choices ... 'Drop the billions being spent, unapproved and unannounced, on transforming Britian into a micro-monitored fascist state run for the benefit of we-know-best pressure groups'.
For example: just who do YOU think is paying for the spy cameras that are springing up at a frightening rate on motorway bridges, traffic lights, road signs, mobile masts, fixed masts, Granny's zimmer frame etc etc to say nothing of the massive infrastructure that supports them and keeps track of everywhere we go and everything we do? Yes thats right, the poor old taxpayer is!
This isn't government spending as planned by Government (and voted on by the electorate) its government spending as demanded by (unelected) pressure groups - in this it's case the Police but one way or another all Government spending (and policy) seems to be aimed at appeasing one pressure group or another.
Can we go back to government by Government after the next election please Mr Cameron....
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton.
I wonder whether the polls wouldn't come out different if people had been shown the actual expenditure in the various sectors.
"Just as hundreds of thousands of people find themselves joining the dole queue, a substantial minority of the country thinks government should cut benefit payments. And just as the global recession risks consigning millions of the world's most vulnerable to total poverty, a slightly larger group think that it is the time to pull the plug on overseas aid."
yet, only 27% find fault with spending on defence when, arguably, much of that money is actually wasted (quite literally blown to smithereens). sad.
Complain about this comment
I'm firmly in the "let's make cuts" camp.
However I also don't think that we necessarily have to cut services to cut expenditure. There do seem to be a lot of non-jobs in the public sector. I have also heard from friends who work for the public sector that there are quite a number of people in well paid jobs with no expectation of them ever having to produce anything because they know someone important, they've been there a while and they would be hard to get rid of.
I wouldn't like to guess how much of an impact that would make on public expenditure, but I'd like to find out and try to stop it happening in future.
Complain about this comment
I think the author could of at least tried to be a bit less biased himself. I note he says the two most wanted cuts are those that affect the poor.
As a BBC public servant himself this unlikely to be him. Perhaps he does not quite grasp that hhuge public debts make us all poor by forcing taxes up in the long-term and the value of the stock market (our pensions, but not BBC ones no doubt) down.
This sadly is a very typical BBC piece of commentary.
Complain about this comment
My daughter worked in a New Deal fund-distribution organisation for a couple of years, under an alcoholic boss who seemed incapable of functioning in the role. She (my daughter) got tired of covering for him and getting nowhere with his superiors and left the organisation, shortly before it was allowed to fail.
My wife attends a computer course at a local Community Education Centre which is "run" by someone who seems incapable of taking decisions. Lessons are cancelled at the last minute without notice, or they are told that the lessons have been cancelled when they haven't, or the computers don't work, basic materials are not provided and some members of staff are so busy playing Solitaire on the computer that they have no time to address the needs of course attendees.
My own experiences when unemployed included being encouraged by Job Centre staff to claim for certain benefits when it was perfectly clear that once the full facts were written down on the appropriate forms that I would stand no chance of being entitled to them. Apart from offering false hope, the staff were often unable to answer simple questions, or of finding out the answers or of pointing me at people who could. One member of staff told me to my face that I was just being lazy when I tried to rearrange a couple of appointments that were on consecutive days so that they were on the same day, after I had had to move some distance away as a result of the rental agreement on my home expiring. It would have saved their time as well as mine, not to mention the cost of petrol and a small contribution to global warming.
I am quite convinced that there are many people in public service who do their best in trying circumstances and deserve to be well rewarded. I am equally sure that their lives and ours would be made a lot easier if the powers that be could overcome a basic reluctance to sack the incompetent or replace those who fail to perform.
Complain about this comment
mwj666
They left an obvious option off the poll choices ... 'Drop the billions being spent, unapproved and unannounced, on transforming Britian into a micro-monitored fascist state run for the benefit of we-know-best pressure groups'.
For example: just who do YOU think is paying for the spy cameras that are springing up at a frightening rate on motorway bridges, traffic lights, road signs, mobile masts, fixed masts, Granny's zimmer frame etc etc to say nothing of the massive infrastructure that supports them and keeps track of everywhere we go and everything we do? Yes thats right, the poor old taxpayer is!
Very, very true also the ID card scheme, monitoring of all our internet, phone, email communications and the mass database to go with it. All the committees and sub committees that exist at the public cost just to ensure "Political correctness" in everything said, written and done.
There is far too much money wasted in the "lets make everything completely safe for babies when being used by adults" department which usually ends up in increased costs all the way down the line
How about reducing the stupid wages that high up government officials all seem to demand and scrapping the idea of them voting their own wage increases. How many of the government "departments" are really needed and how many are there doing noting but trying to justify their existence so they can keep creaming from the public tax funds.
Not to forget the obligatory... Save another few billions by scrapping the failed War on Drugs and get the added income of the tax from it.
Complain about this comment
from the charts it seems many like the idea of cutting overseas aid and benefits mostly.
cutting benefits would be a very draconian idea and create more problems than already exist, with unemployment on a steep rise one can only think those liking benefit reduction are in secure jobs.
what ever way the government decides to reduce the debt it is read that we the people will suffer.
i can foresee whatever bunch becomes the next government they will only have a short life due to their having to clamp down as a result of this governments ineptitude.
this government has tried to spend its way out of problems and thus have doomed us to years of payback, should they be permitted to leave office with no comebacks upon them it will show that they could do whatever they want with public monies and laugh about it over drinks in the bar.
Complain about this comment
Easton:
"To dismiss them all as power-hungry, money-grabbing crooks at this time really isn't helpful"
Regardless of the truth of such a statement?
The British establishment forfeited it`s right to rule this country when it decided to overtly lick the boots of the parasitic bankers.What a grotesque spectacle it all is.This country is going down the toilet,and no amount of media hand-wringing can stop it.The rot has penetrated too deep,the solutions too "unpalatable".
Complain about this comment
Love the pie chart - thats a brilliant example of lack of consensus.
I don't think you can categorise people's options for cuts as just being "If cuts have to happen, voters want them to happen to others."
I'm not old and I'm not currently sick (like most of the people polled I guess), but I agree with the majority who would not want to cut services to the old or the genuinely ill.
Complain about this comment
The trouble with such surveys and the comments it provokes is that the public do not have all the facts. Here are a few to think about:
A single unemployed person living in social housing gets their rent and council tax paid + £64.30 a week. Sounds a lot until you think that this has to cover food, electricity incl heating, water, TV, phone calls, travel (even to a jobcentre) clothing, washing, cleaning. But I agree some benefits could be cut, rules could be tighter, but do we need to employ more people in order to check claims? As far as the quality of staff - just try working in one of those offices and decide how long you would stay? Oh, I get it, deny benefits to abusive claimants - and have their children suffer causing more problems in the future?
Oh, what about administrators in the NHS? Yes a lot seem a waste of time collecting figures. BUT when we complain we want explanations. "You mean the government does not know the staff turnover in walk-in clinics in the South West!" exclaims the oppostion (of any colour), "You are not capable of running the NHS." So we collect figures on everything as a result of that political and media culture.
Cut overseas aid. Believe it or not our standing in the world is not that bad because of the level of aid. If we cut it we will be seen as mean and our standing will decline. This will affect trade and our ability to create a world which we want to be a part of.
These are just small examples of what a complex area spending is. That is when you look at the facts. Then of course there plain lies. For the benefit of the rather tedious person who attacked the author because of his pension. For his information the BBC pension is funded from investments (admittedly from the licence fee) and is subject to stock market changes. It is not funded like the armed forces pensions which comes out of current revenue. BBC newsrooms and staff have also experienced cuts. How do I know? I checked up on Google.
As for those who want to be like Fraser in Dad's Army - what do you suggest?
At the moment there are no perfect solutions, just hard decision. Whoever wins the next election will have to make some tough decisions. Even if we were not in an economic downturn tough decisions have to be made every day. We should recognise this and make a better attempt at getting a better set of politicians (all parties) to make these tough decisons.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
As has already been said, anyone who works in the public sector knows that huge amounts of money are wasted. But even if we could reduce this waste to minimal levels, it would still not save enough money to restore the public finances to non-banana republic status.More is needed.
You asked for suggestions. Here are a few:
Cancel ID cards
Stop funding for speed cameras (although some of the saving should be spent on more traffic cops)
Stop councils employing Diversity Outreach Officers and the like.
Cancel the purchase of Batch 3 Typhoon and spend half the money saved on more, better equipped infantry
Get ministers and civil servants to appreciate that spending money on a problem doesn't automatically lead to a solution
Disband 50% of quangos (why does milk need a Board to market it, for goodness sake!)
Reduce the number of MPs by 50%
Reduce the number of ministers by 50% (this will not simply save money on salaries and office costs etc but will reduce the number of hare-brained schemes to spend taxpayers' money)
I could go on - but someone else have a go.
Complain about this comment
I feel that I should point out that when people are given the opportunity to influence things, they make it their business to find out about them and properly debate them.
Complain about this comment
The Pie Chart at the beginning of the article shows 38% +29% (two thirds) of people polled think some action (increase taxes or cut public spending)is required to reduce Government debt, one third do not. This is roughly in line with Labour and Opposition (Conservative + Lib Dem)support, unsurprisingly.
If PM Brown is listening to the people, why does he persist in failing to tell us whether he will increase taxes or what services he will cut?
Instead he continues his deceit that nothing needs to be done, growth (in or just after a recession!!) will take care of everything.
Complain about this comment
Post 3 hits the nail on the head.
Just look at our roads - where prefectly good ones are resurfaced every March in order to use up budgets:
How about this as an improvement:
A department has a budget of X, but only spends Y (Y is less than X) The government allows that department to save 50% of (X-Y) in it's own accounts into the next financial year, but in exchange the budget is cut by 10% of (X-Y) for subsequent year. Having to spend the reserve in a future years is obviously not desirable, but provides a buffer to that department in times like these, where they will see cuts, and results in better services with an insentive to be efficient.
Complain about this comment
There is no logic chain here : yes, of course we need advice from experts - along with increased education for the electorate in general - in order to make qualified decisions, but to take this information and come to the conclusion that "therefore, we need our politicians to make our decisions for us" is not only illogical, but anti-democratic. What we need is a new political party - an Independent Democratic Alliance - which has no agenda of its own, and which is created with only one policy : to effectively and efficiently research, assess, collate and implement the wishes of the majority of the electorate. We The People - the 60 million citizens of this nation - should be the ones deciding policy, making our own mistakes in our own way, learning from them and maturing as a political society. The alternative is to be kept forever as uneducated, infantile dependents of a cynical political elite.
Complain about this comment
I used to work in the Civil Service as a professional, that is someone who has qualifications from a job outside the civil service, and know the we must spend the budget or we will lose it. This is the government way and has been all the time so there is no way any one in the civil service will make any effort to change the system and save money.
For all government funded departments maybe the rule should now be that the department can keep the savings and the years allowance should be the same the following year. If the savings continue than the savings can then be put back into the pot, leaving the department in question with the same budget as before but the savings can now be put to ues for something else. The ammounts involved at the end of a year are not huge but are what has been saved against a rainy day or additional expense not originally budgeted for.
Of course one of the biggest savings will be MP's salalies and expenses and also those of the unwanted MEP's and Brussels when we finally get our freedom form that criminally ruinous body.
Complain about this comment
My English is not very good, so I thought 'Benefit payments' meant all that money MP's can get for 2nd house allowance & other subsidies ...
Where in that list of categories will those waste of money be put ?? Can the tax-payers get the money back ??
I've also heard that some diplomats in outlandish foreign countries take a chef from the home country ... Surely they can find a reliable cook on-site cheaper or maybe the 'home-grown cook' matter is also security related ?
Complain about this comment
Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers. You know fine well that cutting overseas aid means "Stop propping up friendly despots and keeping handout nations dependent on us", and that cutting benefits means "Stop giving money to career scroungers and benefits tourists". However, since the hug-a-rainbow liberals who carried out this alleged poll are too spineless to actually give those as options, you get to make your snide "Oh, look how short sighted and cruel the base, common and popular can be - this is why you need to have decisions made for you by you betters" comments.
Nobody's buying it. Jog on, Easton.
Complain about this comment
Making a swinging cut on any one dept is tricky, but I'd agree with a number of points raised in the posts above re lack of mechanism for depts to benefit from savings. Also there is always a conflict between centralised government and effectiveness and efficiency ergo as effectiveness rises eg by develution, economies of scale dwindle and so efficiency falls. And vice versa.
My starters for 10 to save money would be:
i) get rid of job centres ( as they only serve a certain type iof worker and now people from across a range of jobs & professions need help (excluding bankers). If needs be subsidise employment agencies to help quickly identify trends in need and retrain the most needy to the right area of work.
ii) MPs. They certainly don't represent my view in the Commons. In fact can anyone think of the last time an MP asked you for your view. Most of them don't even partake in the pretense through canvassing door to door. Or if they do, its when most of us are at work or enjoying a 2 hours commute home for a 35 mile journey. Oh joy. So get rid of them. If you want stability, the ability to elarn from cause and effect, apply bonuses/ reductions when the effect hits the fan ( and it could be arranged to have sackable/ rewarded/ reduced pay accountability), let civil servants formally run the country. I mean they do it anyway. Compared to an MP wannabe unionist I met the other day, who was terrifying stupid or the complacent convenient half-truth telling sort from the other side. God help us all if that's the next generation of MPs. Lets see now 500 MPs at 65k pa = £32.5M. Peanuts I know by deficit standards, but we'd all feel better.
iii) I wonder how much it would add to the deficit to instigate a democratic e-voting system (those without PCs could do it from libraries/ work at lunch time perhaps). Who knows, maybe if we had the chance to vote on every thing, maybe politicians might see a certain value in engaging us. What do you think, are we worth democracy?
Complain about this comment
1 ''The three-way split'' indicates that 1/3(3% ''don't know'',31% ''leave things as they are'') of the poller didn't understand the question.Remember, the question specifically said ''Govt. spending WILL NEED TO BE REDUCED ''.
2 IPSOS Mori poll looks suspiciously like the pollers where nearly all taxpaying, working people.
3 From 2,we see yet again the attempt by an in-group to damage the ''other'' (group).i.e.non-workers/other countries.
4 more interesting to use the inverse, and see from there own group,pensioners,NHS,schools,police e.t.c., in that order of least cuts to be made.
5 Note: you could argue however that there are few areas that escape cuts.did the Civil Service,Royals and government not get any votes, or were they excluded in the range of measures ??
6 From 5,makes the term ''public services'', ambiguous.
7 as far as ''inefficiences'' in the economic system is concerned this will be born out from our recovery from the recession.If there are inefficiencies, the recovery will be alll that more sharp.employment will lag longer than usual.
8 from 7, I don't expect this to be the case.That is,the government hopes of 1.25% and 3.5% growth in the next two years to be overly-optimistic.Even if there are these returns,fueled by too long, too low bank interest rates,then inflation will be a problem.(Interest rates need to go up this month by 0.5%)
9 from 8. Which means more wool to be pulled over the voter eyes.
The foolocracy remains.
Complain about this comment
"To dismiss them all as power-hungry, money-grabbing crooks at this time really isn't helpful"
So, do we forgive and forget all the MPs who were/are cashing in on a corrupt system?
"Once again, it might be argued, we need smart, professional policy-makers to consider the short, medium and long-term implications of any spending changes."
And where are these people coming from? The "professional" people in government are the Civil Service who are there for a career and not MPs who know that they may well be back on the dole after one election.
"Right now, we need all the expertise we can muster."
Agreed! What qualifications are currently needed to become an MP? or, for example, Foreign Secretary?
Areas for cutting. "two candidates emerge as serious candidates for the axe - and both of them hit the poor" Not quite the whole truth is it Mark? A lot of overseas aid has been seen to be diverted from actually helping the poor, and benefits such as Child Benefit (or whatever it is called today) is not means-tested and is payable to millionaires as well as someone who is unemployed.
Better value for money would be obtained if (a) ALL overseas aid was administered by the UN, and given to areas of natural disasters and not used to prop up corrupt regimes. and (b) Child Benefit was means tested to ensure that the money only went to those in need.
Complain about this comment
mwj666, have you not heard of Crime & Punishment? If somebody causes an accident on the motorway, how are we to know if they were driving dangerously unless it was caught on camera? If a gang of thugs kick someone's head in on the street, how are we to identify them when the victim's eyes stopped working as soon as they were attacked? How about if you were being kicked to death on the street metres away from a CCTV camera which - due to your pressuring - the police had stopped using? That would be the end of you, my friend. So next time, think before you decide that criminals should not be pursued.
Complain about this comment
As usual we forget that we are but a small island and no matter what our chosen ones say we have no power which is why what ever happens in the USA we take on her like this item. Do not look passed you nose to what is really happening if we have money to back wars that we have no Right being in then we have money for anything we over pay PMs, MPs, media no matter whom they work for, we have quangos by the ton, and local councils are like the Mafia all over paid and full of secrets and handshakes. It is a Masonic dream this country, and to deflect from this blame those who have no rights in this country like those being invited here by the Govenment and not for free either the Govenment can round them up and kick them out at will to me people who come here are between a rock and a hard place like those who are on benefits it was called the dole and that is what it is. Many people have worked long hard hours for title pay because they have never been able to get up the ladder but that is how capitalism works the many support the few.
The reason pensions and the dole came in and it is all means tested and has always been so it s rules come from the workhouses of the day, the need to blame those who have little or no rights is easy its looking at those who have to many rights usually those who have made the laws I still find Britian dumb even though we have had two wars we are willing to bring out the same old chestnuts the Govenment spends £7million per day on war so were is the credit crunch? I have heard them on the media talk about how its everyone in in this country who has brought this about when they rule and I watch as they sell the green tax to us have a green day yet do you see the rich in this country cutting back the Royals and the Govenment are they not swanning about in their expensive cars and planes and trains and demanding pay rises as if it does not apply to them look at the media both papers and televisison obsession wages for what going to meetings and pressing some buttons and ticking boxes. Brown travels around the world but we have internet and phone and I assume he can still put pen to paper? no he has to travel like Blair who had wanted his own plane like the President of the USA so how can there be a credit crunch I think we should have a flag with a huge mushroom in the middle and everyone taught what it means and believe it. Now when we have air tanks on out backs and meter so that they can see were we go and whom we talk too. We have leaders of the world or free world as they call it, which is a joke.
I watched Nick Griffin talk rubbish as usual but he has the right to do so, now I would have him tested for addictions like drugs and drink as they would have anyone of the street. He is shown as the face of England not good as it has not changed that much and we are still as a nation conned because we are dumb.
Complain about this comment
The first port of call for drastic changes and massive savings is why do we need over 600 MPs in parliarment, (WE DO NOT) why do we need so many local coucillors in local government, (WE DO NOT) why should public purse pensions be in accordance with earnings, surly those on high salaries should make adequate provision for their pension years and only receive the state pension when they retire. (IF STATE PENSION IS ENOUGH FOR A NORMAL PERSON TO LIVE ON, IT MUST BE ENOUGH FOR A COUNCIL CEO OR OTHER HIGH RANKING OFFICIAL ALSO) same goes for an MP, Judge, NHS Hospital Manager, Head Teacher, Chief Fire Officer, Chief Constable, PCT Manager, Senior Civil Servant, Quango Manager, and all the others paid from the Public Purse.
Complain about this comment
We are the most taxed, most regulated country in Europe and our Government STILL can't run a successful country. Man, I think a radical rethink is in order. Maybe if our political parties were to think more about the good of the country and its citizens over the long term than what will win more votes, keep them in power or give themselves more power then we would all be better off.
When Thatcher dismantled the manufacturing industry she created a huge amount of jobs in administration and the creation of quango's. These admin jobs have remained, especially in the NHS, get rid of the red tape, now there would be a huge saving. The war on drugs is another place they could save an enormous amount of money, and maybe make some in taxes, but that's another discussion.
I'd also like to see MP's and local councillors pay back the money that has been wasted over the years on their "twinning trips". Dinners that tax payers have to pay for when the MP's *entertain*. I'm sure they can done a hell of a lot cheaper than they are.
Whitehall is another place where HUGE savings could be made.....but that would take a PM with a lot of guts and a squeeky clean record.
Complain about this comment
Benefits should certainly be cut. Those not working should have to work FOR the benefits.
Foreign aid should be opt in only i.e. if you wish to give your money to foreigners, fine but don't involve me, the British taxpayer.
Public 'services' should be just that: services. Basic. Extras? Pay for them yourself.
We are going to be in massive debt for many years to come. Strong, not popularity obsessed, leadship is what is required.
And they can start with immigration. What there is in Britain should be available to the British, first and foremost. There is little enough as it is without inviting more in who are more heavily dependent on the services they have no right to.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS