Delia is out campaigning for Ed today - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/delia-smith-im-backing-labour-5632271
That is a massive endorsement. Probably delivers Labour both Norwich seats. Now wait for Cameron "I hope you will support my team, Ipswich Town"
Using a Supermarket boss to produce a report on the NHS is almost as stupid as using a rail regulator to review policing. What next director of Hornby to review the trains, Bernie Ecclestone to look at how we can speed up traffic on our roads or a butcher to review how we deal with the dead
I've never really understood why the term champagne socialsist is seen as a derogatory term either- surely someone who is better off financially but keeps their morals, ethics and values intact is positive
Both Clegg and Cameron helped cover up *****phile activity in Westminster and continue to do so. Vile human beings that have moral compass. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Thatcher-knew-*****phile-MP-Cyril-Smith.html
Generally a 'champagne socialist' votes for a left wing party because they can afford to do so not because they have 'morals'. Those of us who 'work' for a modest living simply cannot afford the higher taxes that come with a Labour government. I would suggest that most on here who advocate left wing views are either earning £30k+ per annum, are long term unemployed living on handouts or retired with no private pension.
Well I don't fit any of your categories.I'm not yet retired but my income is less than £30k. I was in business for 36years. I don't quite get this "They vote Labour because they can afford to,not because of morals" . So where does that leave most millionaires? They can clearly afford it but don't. I would suggest that comes down to greed. Most of the Tories I come across are social climbers, something I find quite unappealing.
Complete and utter myth my friend, having policies that encourage people to find work rather than sit on their backsides receiving handouts is not '****ting on the poor' . Why should someone, anyone who doesn't want to work (and I know quite a few), enjoy the same finer things in life as those who work damn hard all week? For every one deserving recipient of welfare there are ten undeserving IMO probably more
Congratulations for the most idiotic post on this whole thread! This screams more about your own class warfare prejudices then concern for the plight of Foxes!
KIO, I don't have any problem with people having to do work. What I do have a problem with however is the significant proportion of our society who have no marketable skills being exploited by the wealthy. This happens in a number of ways,it certainly does in housing where anyone with the wherewithal to buy say four houses can comfortably live off the income without the need to work. By forcing people to take **** jobs that is handing a great deal of power to employers who use it in a way that is exploitative in many cases. I know it is difficult because many small businesses do struggle to make a living at all,however many are coining it and not paying their fair share.
Getting people off benefits = Sanctioning people so they receive literally nothing and need to eat from foodbanks . This should not happen in our country. Creating new jobs= 40 hrs a week shared between 4 people and exploiting EU imigrants. If you think 90% of people on benefits are chosing to live like that on the poverty line you are delusional KIO. I hope for your sake your job is safe or you will be voting for your own demise. I like Cruyff don't fit into your stereotype Labour voter either. Cut police numbers and 12 billion quid from Welfare and we will have chaos .
How is that Global brand working out for you at QPR ? The season took a bit of a nosedive . please log in to view this image
