Please find enclosed the details of what Labour (and by definition) Tony Blair have done for the people of Sheffield Central constituency. You can multiply some of the stuff up by up to six to get the full total for Sheffield.

I think TB has been a great PM, leaving Iraq aside, if only for the minimum wage, family and child tax credit and the 0.7% overseas aid pledge.....

Labour - working hard for the people of Sheffield Central

Labour is working hard for local communities, delivering more jobs, safer streets and high quality public services available to all. Britain has the lowest interest and mortgage rates for nearly fifty years, the lowest inflation for thirty years and the highest employment since the 1970s. The Tories are pledged to an agenda of cuts, charges and privatisation that is more extreme than ever. They are committed to an immediate cut of £18 billion to public services and would return Britain to recession.

More nurses, more doctors
Since Labour came to office in 1997, waiting lists are down, investment is up, and there are 2,125 more nurses and 561 more doctors caring for patients in South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority. The Tory agenda for cuts, charges and privatisation would mean deep cuts for local hospitals and fewer doctors and nurses.

More teachers
Since 1997, standards in our schools have risen across the board and there are now 190 more teachers helping children in Sheffield Local Education Authority. The Tories' commitment to an immediate £18 billion cut in public services would mean painful cuts to local schools and fewer teachers.

More police
Our streets are safer, crime is down and there are now 25 more police officers fighting crime in South Yorkshire Police Force than in 2001. The Tories are committed to an immediate cut of £669 million from the Home Office and criminal justice. The scale of Tory cuts would mean severe cuts in the numbers of local police.

Record number of people in work
Unemployment is down by 50 per cent in Sheffield Central and around 3,240 people have got jobs thanks to Labour's New Deal in Sheffield Central since 1997. The Tories are pledged to axe the New Deal and would return Britain to mass unemployment.

More for pensioners
In Sheffield Central, the winter fuel allowance warmed the homes of 13,285 pensioners in February 2004 and Labour is helping all pensioners to enjoy a decent and secure retirement. 5,236 pensioner households in Sheffield Central are now benefiting from Pension Credit, with a national average award of £41.34 a week. The Tories have opposed every measure Labour has taken to boost pensioner prosperity. They would scrap Labour's Pension Credit and penalise Britain's poorest pensioners.

More for families
In 1997 there was no child care guarantee for parents. Now every three and four year old is entitled to one of the 11,300 free part-time nursery education places available in Sheffield Local Education Authority. The Tories are committed to cuts in Sure Start and have opposed all Labour's tax credits for hard working families with children.

This information is from publicly available sources and figures refer to those available in February 2004 (unless otherwise stated). It is taken from the Labour Party website at www.labour.org.uk where if you put your post code in, you will see what Labour has done for YOUR constituency.

I love the way you convieniently brushed off the Iraq war, and failed to mention top-up fees. Top-up fees will hit Sheffield very hard.

More illegal immigrants,violent crime up, iraq shambles,selling out to the E U, record levels of debt 1 million still on waiting lists etc etc.
You see their is the other side of the coin as well.

Well I suppose it did sound like I brushed off the Iraq war.

I supported the Iraq war, as I would support any war that was designed to remove a brutal dictator, such as Zimbabwe for instance.

I dont subscribe to the view that because our Government supplied weapons to Iraq once upon a time, we should thereafter do nothing to correct our errors.

I dont subscribe to the view either that the murder of 300,000 people, as found in mass graves by the Red Cross, should have been allowed to go on.

As to top-up fees, I find that once most people know the truth about them, they dont mind them so much. That is, you only pay them back once you start earning over £15,000pa, if you dont earn that much then you wont have to pay. And you dont pay until after you have left......so it shouldnt affect the life of the student.

I left Uni with a huge debt, back in 1988, and I had to pay that to my bank at regular interest rates, I didnt get a subsidised reduced rate like the new system.

I love the way you conveniently brushed off all the rest of my stats

Originally posted by Belle
Labour - working hard for the people of Sheffield Central
Well as Labour only has 1 seat in the Central Ward, what about the Lib Dem and Green councillors that now sit alongside Labour in Sheffield Central? Don't they count?

Sheffield central is a parliamentary constituency, it covers the city centre, hence my choice of it.

You could alternatively have a look at
Sheffield Attercliffe
Sheffield Brightside
Sheffield Hallam
Sheffield Hillsborough
Sheffield Heeley

This isnt about local politics, it is about national politics, although I expect someone could point you at some detail about what Labour has done in the central ward. I didnt know there was a central ward to be honest, but I havent kept up since the boundary changes and since I dont work there anymore.

Originally posted by Belle
I think TB has been a great PM, leaving Iraq aside

And an apalling travesty of a PM if you don't. And I do not see how you can, or should.

Phan - I thought I had covered that in a subsequent post

I did also mean to add that he has been the PM for 7 years, so there is more to his premiership than Iraq

Originally posted by Belle
As someone shut down Yorkie's perfectly satisfactory thread, just because they didnt like his tone (what about how he felt about their tone I wonder?) and because he used bold, when everyone knows that only a moderator can do that.....(another made up rule I feel)

Cant resist a good pop at the ol' mods again eh? Next time you feel the need to answer a question no-one asked try the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of each and every thread on here.

Also, you dont know what was said in PM's from the apparent angelic Yorkie, although if the boot had been on the other foot and it'd been a Tory or LibDem thread you'd have been the very first to complain about it.

If you want to know what the public at large think about our glorious leader Mr Blair then look at the public opinion polls which show him going down opinion wise faster than a lead shot.

If you want a thread about labour, fine go ahead be my guest, if you want to add needless rants against the hardworking moderating team then go do it elsewhere and not here.

Originally posted by Belle
As to top-up fees, I find that once most people know the truth about them, they dont mind them so much. That is, you only pay them back once you start earning over £15,000pa, if you dont earn that much then you wont have to pay. And you dont pay until after you have left......so it shouldnt affect the life of the student.

I left Uni with a huge debt, back in 1988, and I had to pay that to my bank at regular interest rates, I didnt get a subsidised reduced rate like the new system.

I love the way you conveniently brushed off all the rest of my stats
I didn't brush them off, I just didn't mention them. To be fair to Sheffield Council, I think they do a very good job.

In more general terms though, I don't like labour for many more reasons. Firstly the way Blair gets away with lieing time and time again, the way he says one thing and means another. Their ridiculous amount of taxes; I'm not complaining about tax, I wouldn't mind being taxed if I could see where my money is going, yet I cannot see any vast improvements in anything since Labour came to power. Then there's the international affairs, the pointlessness of the Iraq war and if we keep this 'special bond' with America, which Labour seem intent on doing, it looks like there'll be more pointless wars on the horizon.

As for the "truth" about top-up fees, then please provide me with some more information, so I can make my mind up.

Originally posted by RPG
If you want a thread about labour, fine go ahead be my guest, if you want to add needless rants against the hardworking moderating team then go do it elsewhere and not here.

I am being your guest.......We are talking about Labour and TB, as you will have noticed

Thanks

so you wont mind me editing out the rant at the front of your thread then? as not to confuse the labour voters?

Charles Clarke, Secretary of State for Education & Skills, explains the Government’s proposals on student funding

"I want everyone to have the opportunity to get on in life. That’s why expansion of the higher education sector is essential. I believe a university education should be available to everyone with the aspiration and talent to benefit from it.

But it’s not just a question of fairness. The UK is suffering a serious skills shortage, and if we want to compete in the global market we need more highly-qualified graduates ready to fill the gaps.

If we want to enable more young people from non-traditional backgrounds to get a top-class education, if we want to boost our skills base and maintain and expand the nation’s research capacity, we need to increase university funding.

So what is the best and fairest way of doing that?

More taxpayers’ money is one option. But we already spend an average of £5,300 a year on every university student. Is it right to increase the amounts going to students, when UK graduates receive a greater financial benefit, in increased earnings over their lifetime, than those of almost any other country?

There is a personal benefit to each individual who goes to university, and that is why I believe we should ask graduates (not students) to make a contribution towards the cost of their education.

But graduate contributions need to be fair, and I think our proposals represent the fairest way forward. Nobody will have to find the cost of tuition fees up-front. People who have benefited from higher education will make their contribution only after graduation, and then on fair and affordable terms.

Repayments will be linked to earnings, not the size of the debt, and will only begin once graduates have an income of more than £15,000. Graduates earning the average starting salary of £18,000 will pay back just £5.19 a week, irrespective of what course they studied or how much it cost.

Graduates will not be charged a real rate of interest, so they will pay back, in real terms, no more than they borrowed.

And students from lower income backgrounds will get extra financial support from the Government. Money to cover all or some of the first £1,125 of the university fee will continue to be paid, and around one third of full-time students will benefit from a grant of £1,000. In addition, universities will have to make a wide range of bursaries available as a condition of charging a higher fee.

Standing still is not an option.

What’s at stake is the future of the country’s higher education system. If we value it, we must have the courage to reform it. Our proposed reform is firmly based on values of opportunity and fairness."

Originally posted by Belle
More for pensioners
In Sheffield Central, the winter fuel allowance warmed the homes of 13,285 pensioners in February 2004 and Labour is helping all pensioners to enjoy a decent and secure retirement. 5,236 pensioner households in Sheffield Central are now benefiting from Pension Credit, with a national average award of £41.34 a week. The Tories have opposed every measure Labour has taken to boost pensioner prosperity. They would scrap Labour's Pension Credit and penalise Britain's poorest pensioners.



Regarding Pension Credits, what about Means testing? You know, the old poor law that New Labour promised to eradicate?

Belle, it pains me to say that I think you are being deliberately naive.

I wont dispute the achievements of the government domestically, because without question in my mind, there has been an upward trend in healthcare, education and now the beginnings of long term investment in infrastructure.

But to say that this war was to get rid of a brutal dictator is naive.

Tony Blair, UN Nov 2002
In the event of Saddam refusing to co-operate or being in breach, there will be a further UN discussion, as we always said there would be. To those who fear this resolution is just an automatic trigger point, without any further discussion, paragraph 12 of the Resolution makes it clear that is not the case.

But everyone now accepts that if there is a default by Saddam, the international community must act to enforce its will. Failure to do so would mean, having stated our clear demand, we lacked the will to enforce it.

So, let us hope this issue can be resolved peacefully. From the outset I wanted this resolved through the UN with the international community acting together. Now that can happen. We have made our choice: disarmament through the United Nations, with force as a last resort.

Saddam must now make his choice. My message to him is this: disarm or you face force. There must be no more games, no more deceit, no more prevarication, obstruction or defiance.

Co-operate fully and despite the terrible injustice you have often inflicted on others, we will be just with you.

But defy the United Nation's will and we will disarm you by force. Be under no doubt whatever of that.

Finally, I have a message for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with you


And what happens?

Saddam plays a dangerous game of brinksmanship (as usual) knowing he holds no cards at all. His country is a wreck, poor, dissatisfied. The brutality factor is turned up to quench rising dissent with the whole situation.

Troops build up in Kuwait, Saddam turns up cooperation with Blix. Blix reports case for WMD looks thin.

Saddam destroys missiles with unauthorised range. Blix reports good cooperation and asks for more time.

Bush issues ultimatum for Saddam, Qusay and Uday to leave the country in 24 hours, or the invasion will begin. Deadline passes, Blix's team flee, Invasion begins.

No resolution after 1441 as stated by Blair, no conclusions of the UN weapons inspectors (they have yet to complete their inspections)

Why? Because everything he said is false. This was not a war about WMD, this was not a War about evil dictators, This was a war over control of global resources.

And the world's only superpower made a decision in about 93-94 that Iraq was the second largest holder of proven oil reserves, that the mad dog they had effectively installed and supported throughout 10 years of hostilities with Iran (who had just thrown out an installed leader, the Shah) had served his purpose and needed to be disposed of.

So they carried on bombing and sanctioning Iraq through the UN security council. As for mass graves of 300,000:

Madeleine Allbright, Clinton's pet Hawk) being interviewed on 60 minutes by Leslie Stahl
Stahl:"We have heard that half a million children have died (from sanctions). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it??

Albright:"I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it"

That was half a million dead children by 1996. I guess more up to date figures are available.

I don't say this in an effort to compete with death totals, but only to help illustrate that no-one at a decision making level seems concerned enough with human life to try and avoid the wholesale destruction of it; regardless of whether they are Bill Clinton or Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge - SAS trained!)


Anyway -

When 11 of the 15 9/11 hijackers turned out to be Saudis, the US got a very clear message from OBL - who could have had 30 nationalities of terrorist on those flights - that Saudi was no longer to be considered a friendly puppet in the region. And the unauthorized airbase at Dahran was not always going to be there.

Cue: operation "secure future oil reserves" and the death, destruction and dehumanization that followed, and continues to this day.

Do you honestly, truly, believe in the idea of a moral war? And if so, can you honestly say that this one was?

You will be stretching my credulity if you can.

And of course, all that money spent on death could have been spent on education, repatriating bogus asylum seekers or something.

And I'm supposed to be thinking tuition fees are a good idea? A few years ago it was all paid for and students got a grant. Surely that is the best way to get more people to go to university, not announcing that if you go to uni you'll be taxed heavily when you graduate? It's all a con, just a way to milk more money out of us. And in the days before tuition fees, taxes were lower, so where's the money going now?

Originally posted by Sidla
so where's the money going now?

Exactly, I hear Blair is in the carribbean again this year... its alright for some.

Unlike the people who spout "Top up fee's are ace!" im going to be paying the fees as it happens, which means that when I eventually move down south looking for jobs im going to be hit with yet more "Tax" brought in by this administration.

Originally posted by Sidla
And I'm supposed to be thinking tuition fees are a good idea? A few years ago it was all paid for and students got a grant.

Sidla, it was more than a few years ago

And as I said, I studied from 1985 - 1988

I worked all of every summer and three nights a week during term time and I still came out owing a lot.

As I recall I got £400 a term grant and my overdraft was over £3000 after three years. Which back in 1988 was a quarter of the value of my modest terraced house, so say in today's terms it was about £25k as a debt, even despite working all the hours.

I was paying interest back then at about 10% I think, although someone can correct me, I havent checked.

Universities have been crying out for money for about 10 years, their voices getting ever louder, it has to come from somewhere. Graduates earn more than non-graduates on average and what the Government is saying is that they will pay £5k for the student and the student can pay up to a further £3k depending on what they study.

Why are you backing top-up fees then??? :confused: Surely if you'd have had them, you'd just be in even more debt, and be earning less so it would take longer to pay it off? And you never even had to pay the tuition fee!!!

Oh, and 'few' is a subjective word.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Belle, it pains me to say that I think you are being deliberately naive.

I wont dispute the achievements of the government domestically, because without question in my mind, there has been an upward trend in healthcare, education and now the beginnings of long term investment in infrastructure.

But to say that this war was to get rid of a brutal dictator is naive.

.....Do you honestly, truly, believe in the idea of a moral war? And if so, can you honestly say that this one was?

You will be stretching my credulity if you can.



Phan

I am not saying that the war was designed to get rid of a brutal dictator, I am saying that I personally justify it on those grounds, as I would action against other dictators in other countries guilty of the same thing. We spent years trying alternatives, the kind of things you might suggest perhaps, none of them worked.

Saddam wasnt interested, he carried on doing what he liked, killing whoever he wanted, years after we had tried sanctions (which I dont agree with) and resolutions etc.

As I understand it, international law doesnt allow countries to interfere in other countries' domestic circumstances, which is perhaps why the UN didnt back the war, but I think they should re-examine the law so that we can do something in places like Zimbabwe. International law presumably wouldnt have let us stop Hitler killing jews, gays and gypsies, providing he stayed within Germany. I dont know, I merely offer it up. I am not very clear on this, but think I have it broadly right in terms of the situation.

I think we should never pass by on the other side, in fact I would say it was my guiding philosophy.

I accept this is a very difficult ethical and moral subject for all concerned.

However, back to the topic, I am glad you recognise the domestic improvements, of which there really are many.

I think what I was trying to say, clumsily, in my opening sentence was "look at the domestic improvements rather than the war when judging TB", I just didnt phrase it very well.

I accept that for some people they cannot forgive TB for the war and that turns everything else to the proverbial ashes in their mouths.

Then again, I believe there are some others for whom disagreeing with the war was really a populist move, identifying something to use against a Labour PM , because they dont support Labour and never have.

Nothing is ever simple, as you point out

I'm still trying to work out how scrapping grants and introducing fees and loans increases the availability of Higher education? Its always seemed to me that the government got a reasonable deal out of students - how much does it cost to keep someone on the dole for 3 years versus having someone at university for 3 years?

There also seems to be some idealistic drive to send everyone to university to get a degree - is there actually any point to this? All that happens is a degree is devalued to the point of near worthlessness and all the essential jobs that require hands on training rather than a degree have no-one being trained for them hence a massive shortage of plumbers et al who now earn far more than the vast majority of graduates...

My understanding is that the cost of putting someone through university has risen to the point where, although the government can pay £5k a year for each student, it cannot afford to pay more than that, particularly if more students are to attend.

Therefore the balance of the money has to come from either students, their families or from graduates.

Top up fees mean that the cost now will fall on the individual who will financially benefit from the education, rather than anyone else - bearing in mind that the tax payer is already paying a bit more than £5k for each one already.

Why shouldnt more people go to University if they want to? Why shouldnt we encourage as many people as possible to have the experience?

Students gain knowledge in their chosen field, they gain the ability to research, the ability to learn and to develop arguments, they learn so much more than facts and figures, it teaches them skills they can apply throughout their adult lives.

This makes for people who can only be a benefit to our society.

I dont like the idea that a degree should be elitist and I dont agree that more people having a degree will debase degrees. It will mean we have a nation with better skills all round.
We all benefit from having a greater number of educated people in our midst.

BTW the suggestion that the only alternative to a degree is the dole for three years is quite frankly ludicrous!

I wouldn't complain about top-up fees, if tuition fees were scrapped, but my understanding is that it won't be. So you have to ask; where is all the extra money going??? :confused:

I'm all for people going to uni from all backgrounds, but surely more people would go if they didn't have to pay a cent.

I certainly wouldn't have gone to uni if I'd have had to pay top-up fees as well as tuition fees.

Originally posted by Belle
Why shouldnt more people go to University if they want to? Why shouldnt we encourage as many people as possible to have the experience?

There no problem will letting people go to university - but why should we encourage, coerce or otherwise persuade them to go to university. Going to a university is no more valuable than learning a trade - arguably less so...

Students gain knowledge in their chosen field, they gain the ability to research, the ability to learn and to develop arguments, they learn so much more than facts and figures, it teaches them skills they can apply throughout their adult lives.

I have to say that bears very little relationship to my university experience (and this is from someone who works in a uni and spent 8 years studying there). A first degree is very much a continuation of schooling and is pretty much just learning facts and figures. There is precious little training in analytical thinking and none in integrative thinking

I dont like the idea that a degree should be elitist and I dont agree that more people having a degree will debase degrees. It will mean we have a nation with better skills all round.
We all benefit from having a greater number of educated people in our midst.

Why? Whats wrong with some educational elitism? Its still going to happen - but all it means is those that want to move into research et al are now going to the funnelled into masters and PhDs - but given the increasing number of people moving into degrees and the decreasing amount of research we just end up with more people chasing fewer jobs, becoming dissilusioned and moving to pastures green - typically the US and voila brain drain again - which is of no help to the nation at al is it?

BTW the suggestion that the only alternative to a degree is the dole for three years is quite frankly ludicrous!


Its not the only alternative no - but remove people from university and the unemployment rates would increase very dramatically...

Originally posted by Belle
Sheffield central is a parliamentary constituency, it covers the city centre, hence my choice of it.

You could alternatively have a look at
Sheffield Attercliffe
Sheffield Brightside
Sheffield Hallam
Sheffield Hillsborough
Sheffield Heeley

This isnt about local politics, it is about national politics, although I expect someone could point you at some detail about what Labour has done in the central ward. I didnt know there was a central ward to be honest, but I havent kept up since the boundary changes and since I dont work there anymore.

Not Sheffield Hallam - thankfully we've never returned, and are never likely to return, a Labour MP.

Also, see this:
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=110063#post110063

So as soon as you earn £15 000 you have to start paying back your top up fees? Is this not that same amount that you have to earn to pay back your 3/4 student loans (if you had one every year) too?

Will it be worth working?

Originally posted by fuzzy
So as soon as you earn £15 000 you have to start paying back your top up fees? Is this not that same amount that you have to earn to pay back your 3/4 student loans (if you had one every year) too?

Will it be worth working?

Well it is a whole £5 a week to pay back if you earn £18k

Hardly a king's ransom

Belle

Have you never heard of the quote

"there are lies, damned lies and statistics", because the quote was made for the your initial post on this thread. You can prove whatever you like with statistics. It's peoples experiences that will prove whether Tony Blair has been successful or not. You can't even use the results on the next general election as an indicator if there is an absence of a credible alternative.

Originally posted by Belle
Well it is a whole £5 a week to pay back if you earn £18k

Hardly a king's ransom

My student loan was quoted as £15 a month payback (i took mine out 10years ago and only had 1), and if you have 3/4 (if they lump them together would be £45/60) plus top up fees of £5. May not seem like a lot but if you have just got your first job, bringing home just over £1000 a month and first house, rent £500 a month at least and are paying council tax for the first time. I think you will find it seems quite a lot when put together.

What about TB's honesty, integrity?
What about there being no sewage treatment in a capital city (Baghdad) The US/UK have spent virtually nothing on rebuilding the fabric that they destroyed and then watched being looted.
The US has spent only 1 Billion of the hundreds of billions made available by Congress for reconstruction (on security) but 20B of Iraqi money (largely on security) The hospitals have no equipment or drugs, the Tigris is a sewer, there's no clean water. If this was a humanitarian intervention this would be sorted, sabotage or not.
Look at our public transport system
Look at his blind ideological support for extremely expensive and inefficient PFI projects to the detriment of the taxpayer, users and staff.
His manipulation of the electoral process: London,Scotland and Wales.
Look at the policy on council housing
..........and on and on.
What's he done for Sheffield? Given us a Council that listens to the public and then goes ahead with it's original intentions, which it knows that the public doesn't support.

What has Tony done for Sheffield you ask? He's made it clear he's not going to bail out former Labour heartlands such as us, after years of Tory rule and the World Student games.

But he did have plenty of cash to throw at that white elephant of the south-east; the Millenium Dome.

Not to mention the Scottish Parliament building and the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

And it seems to pay out Iraqi's in this country who have had their countrymen killed by our troops in Iraq.

Wel lAlcresearch that's what you get when you sign up the the human rights convention.

Spot on Belle,
This Government has reformed this country and re- introduced justice for the man in the street after the Tory ******** took everything off the ordinary man and woman and squeezed us untill the pips squeaked.
If ever they regained power, we would soon see what they would do to us again and again, the poor would get poorer and the rich ie the Tories would get richer, elect the Tories again at your peril!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

Originally posted by alchresearch
And it seems to pay out Iraqi's in this country who have had their countrymen killed by our troops in Iraq.
You are saying its OK for thugs in uniform to beat people to death? And wrong for people to have the temerity to complain about it?
I can see how things got so nasty in Bosnia now.

Originally posted by halevan
Spot on Belle,
This Government has reformed this country and re- introduced justice for the man in the street after the Tory ******** took everything off the ordinary man and woman and squeezed us untill the pips squeaked.
If ever they regained power, we would soon see what they would do to us again and again, the poor would get poorer and the rich ie the Tories would get richer, elect the Tories again at your peril!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

Since When??? The judicial system does not look after the man on the street, It does however look after the criminal elements.
To state that under the Toríes we were squeezed, You must be living on another planet or you are not here mentally!......The average working man has been worse off regarding spare cash after taxes since labour took over.
The number of stealth taxes and the removal of tax benefits ie: married mans tax credit, the mortgage relief tax etc.
The increase of NIC to 11%...In effect we are paying around 30% of our earnings before we go out shopping.
Then we are taxed on certain food stuffs and the power that we use to cook those foods.


I can't wait for the next budget when NIC will most likley go up another 1% .
Maybe they can think up a lot more ways of stealing money from the hard working people of this country......

Originally posted by royjames
Wel lAlcresearch that's what you get when you sign up the the human rights convention.

which one are you talking about roy?

All that rubbish at the beginning of this thread is copy and pasted from the Labour national website. They have a section where you enter in a postcode and it comes up with exactley the same words for everywhere in the country but slighly different stats. I good example of the Labour spin we all know and love that TB introduced!

I certainly would agree that the Tories have no place in the UK nevermind Sheffield.

You only have to look at the last two by-elections to see who the up and coming party are........ the Liberal Democrats. :thumbsup:

Wonderd when the lib dems woul'd get in on the act,Phan I was refering to the european directive on human rights.
I bet he is regretting signing the thing in the first place now,it's costing an absolute fortune in legal aid and like I have said before it was the worse thing Blair ever signed up to.
It's only a matter of time till someone sues the goverment for say contracting cancer due to working in a smoking enviroment,then it may bankrupt the treasury.
All I can say is it serves him right.

So humans shouldn't be entitled to rights?

Originally posted by Sidla
So humans shouldn't be entitled to rights?

What Humans?............