Cost of adult social care outstrips council tax returns

York Press: Cost of adult social care outstrips council tax returns Cost of adult social care outstrips council tax returns

LABOUR has said City of York Council now has to spend more on adult social care in York than it receives in council tax.

The party proposes to increase council tax in York by 1.9 per cent as the council attempts to save £78 million.

It says gross expenditure on adult social care is now £75.1 million, while council tax brings in £69.7million.

The annual operational budget of the council is £124.2 million.

Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, deputy council leader and cabinet member for adult social services, said: “Many are not aware how much demand is increasing for elderly and vulnerable care to which the council has a both a legal and moral duty to provide.

"One case such as a child with complex disabilities can cost as much as £500,000 a year and people are living longer with more complex needs.

“This is why the council is asking residents to pay 37p extra per week in council tax to try and meet some of these increased costs.

“It isn’t easy and the council’s gross expenditure on such care is now greater than the amount received in council tax.”

The authority will decide its budget on February 27.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:00am Mon 10 Feb 14

eeoodares says...

Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have.

Vote them out at the next election and keep them out!
Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out! eeoodares

10:23am Mon 10 Feb 14

asd says...

eeoodares wrote:
Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have.

Vote them out at the next election and keep them out!
Still wouldn't cover the costs. Vote the Tories/lib's government too they are guilty of underfunding and thus help towards deaths of people with mental illness the complete set of tools. This Government is pure nasty
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out![/p][/quote]Still wouldn't cover the costs. Vote the Tories/lib's government too they are guilty of underfunding and thus help towards deaths of people with mental illness the complete set of tools. This Government is pure nasty asd

10:29am Mon 10 Feb 14

Jiffy says...

If all properties actually paid Council Tax that would make one hell of a difference!
If all properties actually paid Council Tax that would make one hell of a difference! Jiffy

10:52am Mon 10 Feb 14

I despair!!! says...

We do have a lovely new paved Kings Square though. Strange how money can be found for such pointless excercises I for one am relishing the prospect of York becoming the new Milton Keynes!
We do have a lovely new paved Kings Square though. Strange how money can be found for such pointless excercises I for one am relishing the prospect of York becoming the new Milton Keynes! I despair!!!

11:10am Mon 10 Feb 14

LibDem says...

The Council is planning to borrow an additional £16 million to fund more Kings Square type schemes.

Next will be a £1.5 million change to Exhibition Square.

That means each and every year over £1 million will be added to the Council Tax burden.
The Council is planning to borrow an additional £16 million to fund more Kings Square type schemes. Next will be a £1.5 million change to Exhibition Square. That means each and every year over £1 million will be added to the Council Tax burden. LibDem

1:30pm Mon 10 Feb 14

YorkPatrol says...

asd wrote:
eeoodares wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out!
Still wouldn't cover the costs. Vote the Tories/lib's government too they are guilty of underfunding and thus help towards deaths of people with mental illness the complete set of tools. This Government is pure nasty
A lot like the previous Labour Government who destroyed this country to which we all now suffer unless you are an illegal immigrant, on benefits, a banker, or someone who bought cheap gold off Gordon Brown
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out![/p][/quote]Still wouldn't cover the costs. Vote the Tories/lib's government too they are guilty of underfunding and thus help towards deaths of people with mental illness the complete set of tools. This Government is pure nasty[/p][/quote]A lot like the previous Labour Government who destroyed this country to which we all now suffer unless you are an illegal immigrant, on benefits, a banker, or someone who bought cheap gold off Gordon Brown YorkPatrol

1:58pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Pretty simple really.. Mange the costs of social care better. If it costs 0.5m for a disabled child then look at ways of cutting these costs or doing things smarter. Its not a defined cost and it is up to them how they use it.

I'd rather you analysed the situation to see if there were ways to make efficiencies then just go "balls..... we don’t have enough cash based on previous out of control spending... lets increase the amount struggling people pay us...brilliant idea.. that way we don’t have to do anything,"
Pretty simple really.. Mange the costs of social care better. If it costs 0.5m for a disabled child then look at ways of cutting these costs or doing things smarter. Its not a defined cost and it is up to them how they use it. I'd rather you analysed the situation to see if there were ways to make efficiencies then just go "balls..... we don’t have enough cash based on previous out of control spending... lets increase the amount struggling people pay us...brilliant idea.. that way we don’t have to do anything," Archiebold the 1st

2:23pm Mon 10 Feb 14

sounds weird but says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Pretty simple really.. Mange the costs of social care better. If it costs 0.5m for a disabled child then look at ways of cutting these costs or doing things smarter. Its not a defined cost and it is up to them how they use it. I'd rather you analysed the situation to see if there were ways to make efficiencies then just go "balls..... we don’t have enough cash based on previous out of control spending... lets increase the amount struggling people pay us...brilliant idea.. that way we don’t have to do anything,"
Also the cost of medical care etc from suppliers is way too high although not as bad as the USA yet. this is the even bigger picture. If the UK and other countries govt didnt bow over to the medical companies then they would not be getting away with it.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Pretty simple really.. Mange the costs of social care better. If it costs 0.5m for a disabled child then look at ways of cutting these costs or doing things smarter. Its not a defined cost and it is up to them how they use it. I'd rather you analysed the situation to see if there were ways to make efficiencies then just go "balls..... we don’t have enough cash based on previous out of control spending... lets increase the amount struggling people pay us...brilliant idea.. that way we don’t have to do anything,"[/p][/quote]Also the cost of medical care etc from suppliers is way too high although not as bad as the USA yet. this is the even bigger picture. If the UK and other countries govt didnt bow over to the medical companies then they would not be getting away with it. sounds weird but

3:09pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Alf Garnett says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Pretty simple really.. Mange the costs of social care better. If it costs 0.5m for a disabled child then look at ways of cutting these costs or doing things smarter. Its not a defined cost and it is up to them how they use it.

I'd rather you analysed the situation to see if there were ways to make efficiencies then just go "balls..... we don’t have enough cash based on previous out of control spending... lets increase the amount struggling people pay us...brilliant idea.. that way we don’t have to do anything,"
Ah yes, the old chestnut "it isn't a question of money ". Efficiencies: that usually means make the dustmen run faster or the care assistants work longer hours. People working at ground level in the public sector, those that remain, are already low-paid workers, many needing benefits themselves. York has excellent child and social services and it would be appalling to see them cut.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Pretty simple really.. Mange the costs of social care better. If it costs 0.5m for a disabled child then look at ways of cutting these costs or doing things smarter. Its not a defined cost and it is up to them how they use it. I'd rather you analysed the situation to see if there were ways to make efficiencies then just go "balls..... we don’t have enough cash based on previous out of control spending... lets increase the amount struggling people pay us...brilliant idea.. that way we don’t have to do anything,"[/p][/quote]Ah yes, the old chestnut "it isn't a question of money ". Efficiencies: that usually means make the dustmen run faster or the care assistants work longer hours. People working at ground level in the public sector, those that remain, are already low-paid workers, many needing benefits themselves. York has excellent child and social services and it would be appalling to see them cut. Alf Garnett

3:18pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Alf Garnett says...

I despair!!! wrote:
We do have a lovely new paved Kings Square though. Strange how money can be found for such pointless excercises I for one am relishing the prospect of York becoming the new Milton Keynes!
Money spent on keeping York pretty is money well spent as it improves the visitor (and resident) experience. Those visitors provide 25,000 jobs; those jobs pay local and national taxes and buy local services. Let the prettiness of York go and you'll regret it. King's Square was becoming squalid; dirty and with broken paving and clapped out street furniture. Other cities look after their environment and so should we. The answer, of course is that those who can afford it - most people, should pay another fifty quid a year (less than a pound a week) on Council Tax. I think that I can afford less than the price of a couple first class stamps once a week.
[quote][p][bold]I despair!!![/bold] wrote: We do have a lovely new paved Kings Square though. Strange how money can be found for such pointless excercises I for one am relishing the prospect of York becoming the new Milton Keynes![/p][/quote]Money spent on keeping York pretty is money well spent as it improves the visitor (and resident) experience. Those visitors provide 25,000 jobs; those jobs pay local and national taxes and buy local services. Let the prettiness of York go and you'll regret it. King's Square was becoming squalid; dirty and with broken paving and clapped out street furniture. Other cities look after their environment and so should we. The answer, of course is that those who can afford it - most people, should pay another fifty quid a year (less than a pound a week) on Council Tax. I think that I can afford less than the price of a couple first class stamps once a week. Alf Garnett

3:24pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: Pretty simple really.. Mange the costs of social care better. If it costs 0.5m for a disabled child then look at ways of cutting these costs or doing things smarter. Its not a defined cost and it is up to them how they use it. I'd rather you analysed the situation to see if there were ways to make efficiencies then just go "balls..... we don’t have enough cash based on previous out of control spending... lets increase the amount struggling people pay us...brilliant idea.. that way we don’t have to do anything,"
Ah yes, the old chestnut "it isn't a question of money ". Efficiencies: that usually means make the dustmen run faster or the care assistants work longer hours. People working at ground level in the public sector, those that remain, are already low-paid workers, many needing benefits themselves. York has excellent child and social services and it would be appalling to see them cut.
No it doesn't at all? Maybe look at different meds, different suppliers, Different services, the amount of taxi fairs (could a better rate be negotiated for example) are individual visits required or can they be grouped, Do individuals need care or will volunteering cover it.

There are a million ways to save money without simply making people work harder. Use your brain. Also as you put it "low paid workers" have chosen their profession. If you think everyone in the council is worked off their feet i'd be a tad more realistic. But no getting people to work harder wasn’t my point. My point was the council is not FINANCIALLY EFFICIENT and does not do enough to challenge costs as if it was their own money.
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Pretty simple really.. Mange the costs of social care better. If it costs 0.5m for a disabled child then look at ways of cutting these costs or doing things smarter. Its not a defined cost and it is up to them how they use it. I'd rather you analysed the situation to see if there were ways to make efficiencies then just go "balls..... we don’t have enough cash based on previous out of control spending... lets increase the amount struggling people pay us...brilliant idea.. that way we don’t have to do anything,"[/p][/quote]Ah yes, the old chestnut "it isn't a question of money ". Efficiencies: that usually means make the dustmen run faster or the care assistants work longer hours. People working at ground level in the public sector, those that remain, are already low-paid workers, many needing benefits themselves. York has excellent child and social services and it would be appalling to see them cut.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't at all? Maybe look at different meds, different suppliers, Different services, the amount of taxi fairs (could a better rate be negotiated for example) are individual visits required or can they be grouped, Do individuals need care or will volunteering cover it. There are a million ways to save money without simply making people work harder. Use your brain. Also as you put it "low paid workers" have chosen their profession. If you think everyone in the council is worked off their feet i'd be a tad more realistic. But no getting people to work harder wasn’t my point. My point was the council is not FINANCIALLY EFFICIENT and does not do enough to challenge costs as if it was their own money. Archiebold the 1st

3:28pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
I despair!!! wrote: We do have a lovely new paved Kings Square though. Strange how money can be found for such pointless excercises I for one am relishing the prospect of York becoming the new Milton Keynes!
Money spent on keeping York pretty is money well spent as it improves the visitor (and resident) experience. Those visitors provide 25,000 jobs; those jobs pay local and national taxes and buy local services. Let the prettiness of York go and you'll regret it. King's Square was becoming squalid; dirty and with broken paving and clapped out street furniture. Other cities look after their environment and so should we. The answer, of course is that those who can afford it - most people, should pay another fifty quid a year (less than a pound a week) on Council Tax. I think that I can afford less than the price of a couple first class stamps once a week.
Again coming from a QS background i could not believe how much the council paid for the project. A good example of "inefficiency".
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I despair!!![/bold] wrote: We do have a lovely new paved Kings Square though. Strange how money can be found for such pointless excercises I for one am relishing the prospect of York becoming the new Milton Keynes![/p][/quote]Money spent on keeping York pretty is money well spent as it improves the visitor (and resident) experience. Those visitors provide 25,000 jobs; those jobs pay local and national taxes and buy local services. Let the prettiness of York go and you'll regret it. King's Square was becoming squalid; dirty and with broken paving and clapped out street furniture. Other cities look after their environment and so should we. The answer, of course is that those who can afford it - most people, should pay another fifty quid a year (less than a pound a week) on Council Tax. I think that I can afford less than the price of a couple first class stamps once a week.[/p][/quote]Again coming from a QS background i could not believe how much the council paid for the project. A good example of "inefficiency". Archiebold the 1st

3:31pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Daisy75 says...

I may be wrong on the exact percentage, but isn't the money from council tax only about 10% of council income with the rest from the Govt? Plus York has a more older people than average, and its getting older. I assume, as well, that the Govt income is dependent on level of deprivation too, hence the council will suffer the same way as the NHS spend does. I guess my point is that there are a lot of complex issues behind the financial gap.
I may be wrong on the exact percentage, but isn't the money from council tax only about 10% of council income with the rest from the Govt? Plus York has a more older people than average, and its getting older. I assume, as well, that the Govt income is dependent on level of deprivation too, hence the council will suffer the same way as the NHS spend does. I guess my point is that there are a lot of complex issues behind the financial gap. Daisy75

4:30pm Mon 10 Feb 14

MouseHouse says...

eeoodares wrote:
Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have.

Vote them out at the next election and keep them out!
...and the biggest vanity project of them all is Trident. A prime ministerial fig leaf that has no other purpose. The nations is spending £100 Billion on this, with little or no return whatsoever.

Scrap Trident and fund our social services, our children, our elderly and our needy.

Scrap Trident.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out![/p][/quote]...and the biggest vanity project of them all is Trident. A prime ministerial fig leaf that has no other purpose. The nations is spending £100 Billion on this, with little or no return whatsoever. Scrap Trident and fund our social services, our children, our elderly and our needy. Scrap Trident. MouseHouse

6:47pm Mon 10 Feb 14

eeoodares says...

asd wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have.

Vote them out at the next election and keep them out!
Still wouldn't cover the costs. Vote the Tories/lib's government too they are guilty of underfunding and thus help towards deaths of people with mental illness the complete set of tools. This Government is pure nasty
with the greets respect to the people who condemn the cuts of the coalition. Labour spent spent spent until there was literally no money left, they never saved during the good times making the recession much harder, especially for the poor.
Outgoing chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne wrote simply: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.'

Please remember this remark the next time you go to vote! Labour nationally and Labour locally DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU!
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out![/p][/quote]Still wouldn't cover the costs. Vote the Tories/lib's government too they are guilty of underfunding and thus help towards deaths of people with mental illness the complete set of tools. This Government is pure nasty[/p][/quote]with the greets respect to the people who condemn the cuts of the coalition. Labour spent spent spent until there was literally no money left, they never saved during the good times making the recession much harder, especially for the poor. Outgoing chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne wrote simply: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.' Please remember this remark the next time you go to vote! Labour nationally and Labour locally DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU! eeoodares

6:50pm Mon 10 Feb 14

eeoodares says...

MouseHouse wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have.

Vote them out at the next election and keep them out!
...and the biggest vanity project of them all is Trident. A prime ministerial fig leaf that has no other purpose. The nations is spending £100 Billion on this, with little or no return whatsoever.

Scrap Trident and fund our social services, our children, our elderly and our needy.

Scrap Trident.
What should we use to protect our Country and its assets, harsh language? Or the Aircraft Carriers Labour ordered....with no planes!!!! Genius!
[quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out![/p][/quote]...and the biggest vanity project of them all is Trident. A prime ministerial fig leaf that has no other purpose. The nations is spending £100 Billion on this, with little or no return whatsoever. Scrap Trident and fund our social services, our children, our elderly and our needy. Scrap Trident.[/p][/quote]What should we use to protect our Country and its assets, harsh language? Or the Aircraft Carriers Labour ordered....with no planes!!!! Genius! eeoodares

7:13pm Mon 10 Feb 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing:
“This is why the council is asking residents to pay 37p extra per week in council tax to try and meet some of these increased costs".

To be clear, you are not asking us, it is being done to us, yet again.

If you want to ask us, go for 3% and lets have a referendum.
Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing: “This is why the council is asking residents to pay 37p extra per week in council tax to try and meet some of these increased costs". To be clear, you are not asking us, it is being done to us, yet again. If you want to ask us, go for 3% and lets have a referendum. YOUWILLDOASISAY

7:15am Tue 11 Feb 14

roy_batty says...

I don't understand this! I was told that 60% of my council tax went towards the wage bill . Maybe it's time to cut the wage bill? not front line workers tho, let's be a bit different to other council's and start at the top.
I don't understand this! I was told that 60% of my council tax went towards the wage bill . Maybe it's time to cut the wage bill? not front line workers tho, let's be a bit different to other council's and start at the top. roy_batty

10:23am Tue 11 Feb 14

Scores On The Doors says...

The over night negative scores achievements awards are as follows.

Gold = eeoodares -33
Silver = YorkPatrol -32
Bronze = I despair!!! -26

Only one award per person, well done to all who took part.
The over night negative scores achievements awards are as follows. Gold = eeoodares -33 Silver = YorkPatrol -32 Bronze = I despair!!! -26 Only one award per person, well done to all who took part. Scores On The Doors

1:15pm Tue 11 Feb 14

MouseHouse says...

eeoodares wrote:
MouseHouse wrote:
eeoodares wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out!
...and the biggest vanity project of them all is Trident. A prime ministerial fig leaf that has no other purpose. The nations is spending £100 Billion on this, with little or no return whatsoever. Scrap Trident and fund our social services, our children, our elderly and our needy. Scrap Trident.
What should we use to protect our Country and its assets, harsh language? Or the Aircraft Carriers Labour ordered....with no planes!!!! Genius!
Trident does not protect the nation. Briefly, threats are from three major sources :

Mad Mullahs who want to die and don't care how many they kill - so us nuking them is exactly what they want. Pakistan I am referring to you. Trident fails to protect us.

Suicide bombers - nobody is going to drop a nuclear bomb on the UK train system to deal with this sort of babarous attack. Trident fails to protect is.

Terrorists - of the non suicide type. This is the morons from the Animal Liberation Front, the fascists that bomb gay pubs in Soho etc. Having Trident hasn't stoped them. Trident fails to protect us yet again.

Instead of wasting £100 bilion, invest in the sceurity we need, data security, people on the ground, information etc. Remember that bloke that walked out of a mosque in a burqa? We've not founf him yet, proper investment in security that works may track him down.

£100 billion will go a mighty long way.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out![/p][/quote]...and the biggest vanity project of them all is Trident. A prime ministerial fig leaf that has no other purpose. The nations is spending £100 Billion on this, with little or no return whatsoever. Scrap Trident and fund our social services, our children, our elderly and our needy. Scrap Trident.[/p][/quote]What should we use to protect our Country and its assets, harsh language? Or the Aircraft Carriers Labour ordered....with no planes!!!! Genius![/p][/quote]Trident does not protect the nation. Briefly, threats are from three major sources : Mad Mullahs who want to die and don't care how many they kill - so us nuking them is exactly what they want. Pakistan I am referring to you. Trident fails to protect us. Suicide bombers - nobody is going to drop a nuclear bomb on the UK train system to deal with this sort of babarous attack. Trident fails to protect is. Terrorists - of the non suicide type. This is the morons from the Animal Liberation Front, the fascists that bomb gay pubs in Soho etc. Having Trident hasn't stoped them. Trident fails to protect us yet again. Instead of wasting £100 bilion, invest in the sceurity we need, data security, people on the ground, information etc. Remember that bloke that walked out of a mosque in a burqa? We've not founf him yet, proper investment in security that works may track him down. £100 billion will go a mighty long way. MouseHouse

6:46pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Ichabod76 says...

MouseHouse wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
MouseHouse wrote:
eeoodares wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out!
...and the biggest vanity project of them all is Trident. A prime ministerial fig leaf that has no other purpose. The nations is spending £100 Billion on this, with little or no return whatsoever. Scrap Trident and fund our social services, our children, our elderly and our needy. Scrap Trident.
What should we use to protect our Country and its assets, harsh language? Or the Aircraft Carriers Labour ordered....with no planes!!!! Genius!
Trident does not protect the nation. Briefly, threats are from three major sources :

Mad Mullahs who want to die and don't care how many they kill - so us nuking them is exactly what they want. Pakistan I am referring to you. Trident fails to protect us.

Suicide bombers - nobody is going to drop a nuclear bomb on the UK train system to deal with this sort of babarous attack. Trident fails to protect is.

Terrorists - of the non suicide type. This is the morons from the Animal Liberation Front, the fascists that bomb gay pubs in Soho etc. Having Trident hasn't stoped them. Trident fails to protect us yet again.

Instead of wasting £100 bilion, invest in the sceurity we need, data security, people on the ground, information etc. Remember that bloke that walked out of a mosque in a burqa? We've not founf him yet, proper investment in security that works may track him down.

£100 billion will go a mighty long way.
you have a very narrow field of vision if you think the nation only has threats from 3 major sources !

do you think North Korea or Iran would hesitate to launch a nuclear attack if they thought we could not respond ?

do you think Pakistan would have launched nuclear a nuclear attack on India if they could not defend themselves

rightly or wrongly nuclear weapons force peace talks, it would be a very bold leader to say to Kim Jong " go on then nuke us, i dare you "

the USA would just be a Soviet state now if they hadn't any nukes to defend themselves the USA would have had no choice but to cave in to the Soviet demands and surrender

yes the taliban or similar may make a dirty bomb but no rouge state will ever threaten our sovereignty whilst we have Trident .
[quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Stop with the vanity projects and maybe you could provide the services you are supposed to on the budget you have. Vote them out at the next election and keep them out![/p][/quote]...and the biggest vanity project of them all is Trident. A prime ministerial fig leaf that has no other purpose. The nations is spending £100 Billion on this, with little or no return whatsoever. Scrap Trident and fund our social services, our children, our elderly and our needy. Scrap Trident.[/p][/quote]What should we use to protect our Country and its assets, harsh language? Or the Aircraft Carriers Labour ordered....with no planes!!!! Genius![/p][/quote]Trident does not protect the nation. Briefly, threats are from three major sources : Mad Mullahs who want to die and don't care how many they kill - so us nuking them is exactly what they want. Pakistan I am referring to you. Trident fails to protect us. Suicide bombers - nobody is going to drop a nuclear bomb on the UK train system to deal with this sort of babarous attack. Trident fails to protect is. Terrorists - of the non suicide type. This is the morons from the Animal Liberation Front, the fascists that bomb gay pubs in Soho etc. Having Trident hasn't stoped them. Trident fails to protect us yet again. Instead of wasting £100 bilion, invest in the sceurity we need, data security, people on the ground, information etc. Remember that bloke that walked out of a mosque in a burqa? We've not founf him yet, proper investment in security that works may track him down. £100 billion will go a mighty long way.[/p][/quote]you have a very narrow field of vision if you think the nation only has threats from 3 major sources ! do you think North Korea or Iran would hesitate to launch a nuclear attack if they thought we could not respond ? do you think Pakistan would have launched nuclear a nuclear attack on India if they could not defend themselves rightly or wrongly nuclear weapons force peace talks, it would be a very bold leader to say to Kim Jong " go on then nuke us, i dare you " the USA would just be a Soviet state now if they hadn't any nukes to defend themselves the USA would have had no choice but to cave in to the Soviet demands and surrender yes the taliban or similar may make a dirty bomb but no rouge state will ever threaten our sovereignty whilst we have Trident . Ichabod76

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree