An Utter Cretin

Thank god Mr. Davies has decided to nail his colours to the mast after only two decades as a member of the Conservative party. He’s now worked out he’s not a Tory after all, he’s a Labour man. It’s organized collectivized central planning all the way for him. Though hang on, Labour don’t do collectivized central planning now do they. This is because the ‘Right’ in British politics, and pretty much across Europe, won all the intellectual arguments of the Twentieth century. Labour moved right-wards in the mid-90’s was because Blair and Brown were astute enough to recognise this was the central reason Labour had not been in power for 18 years. One can only deduct that he is moving for no other reason than personal ambition realizing that he has stagnated in his political career with the Tory party. That moment of lime-light, so desperately needed by some men, was far more enticing to Quentin Davies than the honest principles needed from our politicians. His shift to Labour rests on the back of the battles fought and won by his own side.  

I write this as an undergraduate student. Most intelligent young people who follow politics and belong to political parties have spent a long time seriously and objectively asking themselves questions about why they have chosen the party they have. They do this to ensure that their own personal beliefs, admittedly always influenced by factors beyond ones control, chime with those of their chosen party. I don’t have a desperate dislike of Labour students; I just think there are profoundly wrong and misguided. Naïve perhaps. The thing is, why has it taken Davies at least twenty bloody years to work this out? One thinks of the wasted hours spent by party workers over the past decades campaigning for a man who has grasped at some Faustian pact for nothing more than a foot-note in political history.

49 Responses to “An Utter Cretin”

  1. Tom H Says:

    Good riddance to bad rubbish

  2. Jimmy Mc Says:

    The story has just dropped off the three main BBC politics stories, lol!!

    Quintin who?

  3. Chris Palmer Says:

    ‘It’s organized collectivized central planning all the way for him. Though hang on, Labour don’t do collectivized central planning now do they.’ – Andy

    You’ve been duped. Look at the NHS, a massive centrally planned bureaucracy. Look at Unitary authorities that Labour are attempting to bring in, they are massively centrally planned bureaucracies purposefully designed to destroy local Conservative campaigning bases. Look at the further Labour march into the EU, a Union that is massively bureaucratic and centrally planned.

    Open your eyes, and use your brain. Stop listening to the lies the media feed you. The Labour party are as pro-central planning as they have always been.

    ‘Labour moved right-wards in the mid-90’s was because Blair and Brown.’ – Andy

    Tell me where Labour ‘moved to the right’. They might have taken the economically liberal line on the economy in a few instances – but that is not necessarily ‘right wing’. Look at what else they have done in the past decade. They have engaged in increasing taxation and government spending by unprecedented levels. They are as left wing as they have always been – it’s just that they have been very good at deceiving the people.

  4. Laura Says:

    Well said. It’s slightly sickening to think that he thought it wouldn’t be obvious that a move laced with such spin wouldn’t be noticed by anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

    Good riddence to bad rubbish indeed.

  5. Dan O'D Says:

    I thought his attack on Cameron was paticularly savage and inaccurate. Good riddence to him little turncoat.

  6. Charlie Tattersall Says:

    I went to school in Stamford. Its so Conservative he’s basically kissed goodbye to his seat, regardless of how long he’s served it (and my mates living there).

    When I was in the Sixth Form he came to give us a Talk/Q and A session to the Politics students. Seemed like a nice little Tory then (was about a year and a half ago).

    Worst thing is my very political, very loyal Tory friend went up and shook his hand. My friend said he was a nice guy and that he would vote for him, etc. etc.

    …good riddance to disloyal, misleading rubbish indeed. I noticed Alan Duncan, MP for Rutland and Melton (next door, my MP) was pretty damning of him, hehe.

  7. Andy Says:

    To Chris Palmer,

    It’s called sarcasm……

    If you didn’t get that then please go the same way as Davies. Have a look at the recent Simon Jenkins book and stop relying on what you read in the Mail……

  8. Pug-nosed gimp Says:

    Good one

  9. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    The conservatives won all the iellectual arguments of the twentieth century did they? The NHS? Or would anyone like me to pull them apart on monetarism?

  10. Tom H Says:

    Perhaps if you wern’t up so late Jack you might come out with some decent comments!

    They maybe didn’t get everything right! But we got a lot more right than this lot!

  11. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    Interesting climb down.

  12. Gaz Hughes Says:

    If it helps, I’m not sure that who defected was the point. I’m more interested in the fact that a defection happened in an ‘on the rise again’ party at all. And the letter at least showed that he can add penmanship to our benches if not a glorious left wing past.

    Sorry Tories, I’m only fooling with you. Mostly.

    G

  13. Louis Says:

    “This is because the ‘Right’ in British politics, and pretty much across Europe, won all the intellectual arguments of the Twentieth century.”

    Utter rubbish. If the Conservatives really believe this, let’s see you try to abolish the Welfare State or universal health care and free education. The best you can do is try to reform them. There is an argument to be made that all modern political parties are essentially socialist.

    As for your economic policies, historically the Liberals were the promoters of free-markets as opposed to the protectionist Conservatives (e.g the corn laws). The right in this country never won any debate in the twentienth century, it just ripped-off policies that worked from the other parties.

    As for the right across Europe – most of these are to the left of the Labour party and don’t really believe in free-market principles.

  14. Pug-nosed gimp Says:

    if youre more interested in the fact of defections, look at the amount of cllrs that have joined the conservatives recently

  15. Dan O'D Says:

    Louis, haha. I will keep it short and sweet when I say, if you want to call New Labour socialist, go ahead my dear but your argument is utterly bankrupt! We are all Thatcherite now, New Labour, in particular Tony Blair, is just a moderate form of Thatcherism. Socialism is DEAD and to say that Britains modern political parties are socialist is dilluded at best.

    I also ask you; “the right has never won a debate or ideological argument” really? then what about the struggle between the Scargills miners blatant version of Marxism and Margaret Thatcher’s version of monetarism and conservatism? I doubt the policies of Thatcher were ripped of from any party. Furthermore Mrs Thatcher was totally unique and individual and she became the longest Prime Minister in modern history, if that is not a victory for the right I don’t know what is. Please enlighten me. For more and more of the world’s five billion citizens the answer is no longer in doubt: Market capitalism, not socialism, is the winner. Forget the origins, although they are conservative, the right is in power and never forget it.

  16. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    I think Louis is overstating things but it is true to say that every nation in Europe is a social democracy. 90% of what Thatcher wanted to do never happened. The welfare state grew under Thatcher:- spending on the NHS alone increased by 35% in real terms. Monetarism was a dismal failure. Of the 8 years in which her government set targets for money supply growth, in 6 of those years the targets were missed by large margins despite the constant upward revision of these targets. (See Nigel Lawson’s ‘The View from No.11′ for more on this). Thatcher made huge changes but she inhereted a tax burden of 34% of GDP and left it at around 37%.

    The fact is that it is impossible and childishly simplistic to divide 100 years of human political and economic thought into left and right and then declare that one side won.

    I doubt that Gaz Hughes would have much in common with the frist Labour MPs but a lot of you would have even less in common with the conservative MPs of the same period who opposed the NHS and wanted a nominal fall in government expenditure. (lol)

    It is impossibel to say what Thatcherism exactly is as it evolved over the years and was a very different idea in 1997 than it was in 1975. Monetarism was the original plank of Thatcherism and after that failed it was replaced with more pragmatic but no less radical policies.

    Dan, you started your post by saying that ‘we are all Thatcherite now’. Perhaps Cameron should declare himself a Thatcherite? It would certainly be entertaining. Or maybe George Osborne should suggests that V and T are constant.

    To say that Blair’s government is Thatcherite is rediculous to say the least. I struggle to see Mrs Thatcher announcing a minimum wage. And before any of you suggest that the minimum wage is trivial, you might like to reflect on the fact that your own Michael Heseltine declared that this ‘triviality’ would bankrupt the UK. Now the only thing that is bankrupt is Tory economic policy (quite impressive as it barely exists).

    Dan ends his comments with a silly binary attitude to the world that implies that it’s either market capitalism or socialism. I doubt that there is a single individual on earth who supports a full market economy or a 100% planned economy but we certainly have a STRONGER economy under this government than the previous one.

    What we really have is a Atlee’s britain with the the outdated parts surgically removed but a country that could never return to the 1930’s.

  17. Praguetory Says:

    Jack Matthew – 6 paragraphs when none would have sufficed. Look, I’m a bit pissed because I’ve been out celebrating Blairs’ departure but any proper Conservative govt will not have any difficulty pulling down the % of GDP taken as tax.

    As for winning the economic argument I advise you to look up Tiger economies and join the dots. As Chancellor, Brown has squandered the superb economic conditions he inherited leaving us with deficits. He’s a Communist.

  18. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    A conservative government would not have any problem reducing the tax burden? Thatcher failed, Major failed and infact both of them did the opposite. Whenever the Tories have been challenged to demonstrate how they would do this, they have failed miserably either in the debate of an election campaign (as with Howard) or in the realities of government as with Thatcher.

    Tiger economies have simply demonstrated catch-up growth which has often been seen in under developed economies. Making crude comparisons between the economy of South Korea and our own is hardly the best way to decide economic policy. Currently we are close to the NAIRU and do not have the excess capacity that could be seen in the ‘Tiger economies’.

    I find your last paragraph somewhat strange as he actually inhereted defecits in 1997 and debt that was 43% of GDP and is now 37% of GDP:- you can’t lecture him on borrowing.

    You then assert perhaps with your tongue in your cheek (and your head somewhere worse) that Gordon Brown is a communist. Interesting that you tories were convinced earlier that the government is basically Thatcherite. Quentin davies said that Cameron had ‘no consistency’. Considering the attempts on this board to portray Brown as a Communist control freak and at the same time a Thatcherite, one wonders whether you are all related to him.

  19. Praguetory Says:

    Brown is a Commie posturing on the centre ground. If you’re observant you ‘ll notice the mask slipping.

  20. Praguetory Says:

    Now that Ireland is well over 30% richer than the Uk which part of their growth is “catch up”?

  21. Praguetory Says:

    You can’t win this argument because truth isn’t on your side.

  22. Jordan Says:

    ‘Brown is a Commie’ – With such astite political obsevations such as this you might qualify for a Daily Mail column becasue that is where this sort of inane, intellectually bankrupt comments belong.

    With regards to your comparisons with Ireland, It is simply impossible to compare an economy with almost 60 million people to that with about 3 million people, about the population of the West Midlands. But wait a minute!! Isn’t Ireland a part of the Eurozone and a committed member of the European Union? How do they do it?

    I find it interesting that you make no effort to respond to any of Jack’s comments but instead you by decree proclaim ‘truth isn’t on your side’ Well, if that argument works for you, your welcome to it.

  23. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    I’m not sure how to respond to your claim that Brown is a commie as you seem to be related to David Cameron and Senator McCarthy (I wonder what you look like). You say that you are pissed and I find it interesting that this has broought on paranoia.

    As for ireland, most of that growth has not been catch-up as with the non-celtic tiger economies as it is a very different country to Korea for example. You seem to be incapable of demonstrating how these policies would work in the UK and instead resort to reffering to economies that bare little or no relation to our own.

    You seem to have tried to shift this debate from the orginal topic because of your consistent failure to address my arguments and instead you have simply given glib responses that are not backed up by cogent ideas.

    I have pointed out several arguments that the right has lost in the 20th century. To support the original claim you must demonstrate that monetarism was a success as I sighted this as an argument that they clearly lost.

    Even if the original claim that ‘the right won every argument of the twentieth century’ was correct, (which it isn’t) you don’t seem to be doing too well with the first argument of the twenty first century.

  24. Praguetory Says:

    Calling Brown a Commie isn’t paranoia. He has consistently shown that his first instinct is to meddle and “provide solutions”. Casualties so far are the first class pension system he inherited and international competitiveness (which has fallen through the floor under Labour). What next? Of course, he is attempting to move away from this familiar territory for electoral purposes (which is easy to do on day one of the job) but the leopard’s spots will not change.

    You said that “tiger economies have simply demonstrated catch up growth” and then admitted you were incorrect. Let’s go back to the start. Find the common factor between high growth economies.

    You provide the fallacious argument that Ireland doesn’t bear comparison because of its size. Allow me to introduce you to Australia. Is 22 million people enough? This is a useful article about how the Left there have been forced to accept the Howard orthodoxy.

    Until people wake up to the parlous state of the British economy and the necessary reform required, we will continue to slip internationally.

    By the way, you were wondering what I look like!?! Think Tom Watson MP for West Bromwich East on a good day.

  25. Chris Palmer Says:

    Andy, as you probably know, sarcasm doesn’t often come across very well in text. I don’t read the Daily Mail, so you’re mistake about that I’m afraid, though it seems quite clear from your angry little remark that you don’t like people disagreeing with you – so perhaps it is you that should be leaving our party, not me?

  26. Dan O'D Says:

    Jack M,

    I continue to believe that Tony Blair is a moderate brand of Thatcher and that his governments were as I put previously “MODERATELY Thatcherite” They were in no way Thatcher’s brand of Thatcherism but my argument was to refute the claim that socialism has won out when it blatantly hasn’t full stop.

    Also in regards to Cameron he has actually declared himself the heir to Thatcher so I think your argument is bankrupt when you say it would be amusing for him to call himself Thatcherite…beacause he already has.

    As for the minimum wage argument, pish. They were 2 leaders working in 2 different times with 2 very different sets of economic conditions. It is impossible to say what Thatcher would have done. Thatcher had to contend with the sick man of europe, the legacy of left labour, whilst Blair had to deal with a strong free market legacy left by the Thatcher years thus making it far easier for him to impose a minimum wage. Both Thatcher and Blair had issues to contend with but i think it is plain to see that it is Mrs T who is the better economist.

    Also what has Blair repealed of Mrs Thatcher years may I ask? Arguably he has advanced her privatisation and free market principles and defended her legacy in many respects. New Labour in iteslf is a very mild brand of Thatcherism mixed with a minute dose of socialism to appease the left of the party. Thus it is full of contradictions. Aside from this the architechts of New Labour have endorsed aspects of her legacy, Peter Mandelson actually claimed “We are all Thatcherite now” and Gordon Brown has been dubbed “Thatchers economist”

    Unemployment, the curse of the Thatcher years, has all but vanished largely because of the deregulation of the Thatcher years, and the subsequent decline in strikes. Therefore to refer back to the core argument the right did win an intellectual argument against the left as the emmergence of new labour and the years that followed emulate.

    To conclude I would refute pretty much all of what you have claimed which is sensationalist to say the least and factually inaccurate. We aren’t communists we don’t re-write history. The fact is Thatcher and the subsequent diluted brand of Thatcherism that followed her premiership, in particular her economics, is the norm now not just in Britian but the world over. Yes mistakes were made under Thatcher, yes Tony Blair and his governments are not entirely Thatcherite but they are the closest they can ever be as a supposedly “left” party. If they got any closer they may aswel have just joined the Tories.

    I also refer you to this… http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2345845.stm

  27. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    Well, with the pensions, Cameron has admitted that he would have done pretty much the same thing despite attacking Brown on this. Is he a commie also?

    I was not including Ireland as a Tiger economy and Australia has benefited from its sale of natural resources in recent years. They can export their resources but not that program for economic expansion.

    I have never claimed that socialism has won out full stop. As I implied earlier, it is quite wrong to suggest that a single indefinable ideology has won out in a particular century. The original article did however suggest that the right has won every debate of the twentieth century which is thankfully complete rubbish as demonstrated by the examples I have given.

    As for the minimum wage it is quite easy to predict what Thatcher would have done. Just look at the views expressed by Alan Walters. She stuck closer to him than her Chancellor when it came to the economy. To say that Thatcher is a better economist is a bitof a joke when after ten year sin power she left a massive recession. (And no the situation in 1979 is not an excuse for events in 1990.)

    To describe the NHS as minute can charitably be called an oversight, but there is still a huge amount of Atlee’s Britain in place. The crux of it is that we take these things for granted which reinforces their central role in British life. To say that Brown is ‘Thatcher’s economist’doesn’t square with his policies which can broadly be seen as more neo-keynesian than anything else. You suggest that unemployment fell as a result of Thatcher’s deregulation. Why then did it swell to its highest post war level after she left office?

    I am not suggesting that the right has never won an intellctual argument and we would all be fools to think that any polictical argument is ‘over’ as history not only repeats itself but also corrects itself and re-corrects itself. What I am saying is that the article’s assumption that the right won all of the arguments of the twentieth century is naive at best and I have given examples of how this is not the case. If we can make a neat split between left and right in the 20th century (which we can’t) we could perhaps see it as a tug of war with the rope shifting to meet the demands of the time. But the rope never went as far as Thatcher wanted no matter how much she dug her heels in. Government got bigger overall despite contractions in other areas, and she was one of the biggest tax-rising Prime Ministers in British history: not what she really wanted.

    You conclude by saying that you refute ‘pretty much all’ of what I have claimed but you haven’t mentioned monetarism becuase you know that Thatcher’ monetarism is now an international joke and prague Tory has gone very quiet on the defecits.

    To be charitable to Dan inparticular I might point out that he has his wires crossed in not realising that it was Louis who said that the right have never won a political debate. I’m saying that no win in any political debate is ever permanent and that there are areas where the right is the current victor and where the left is the current victor. But to hand victory in every argument to the right as the opening article did is the sign of an intelectually arrogant individual with very little to be arrogant about.

    (Perhaps you might want to respond in two seperate posts to Louis and me as we seem to be claiming someting quite different.)

  28. Praguetory Says:

    It’s def i cits.

    Due to PFI the current level of debt is wholly understated. Respected commentators suggest that including these hidden liabilities would triple recorded national debt.

    43% of GDP in 1997 v 110% in 2007 is not something to be proud of. It’s disingenuous to attempt to make your comparison without acknowledging these Enron-esque distortions in today’s figures.

  29. Dan O'D Says:

    Jack, I am not going to get involved in a long winded response for it is quite clear we will not agree. For every argument there is a counter argument it depends on which side of the fence you sit on. I think you have made your side of the fence abundently clear! I will say though that you have made a few critiques to my response but have left much of the criticism i made out… i take it you accept the rest? Regardless i think i’d better step out of this one rather than risk going round in circles.

  30. Tom Marley Says:

    Lol I quite enjoyed this thread.

    I think its quite funny that Praguetory has been accusing Brown of being a communist. In all his rage I dont think he really stopped to consider what a Tory is. All Praguetory says is Brown ‘meddles and constantly tries to find solutions.’ If this is your definition of Communist I really think you need to start again. Since when was ‘meddling’ a Marxist thing to do?

    So what are your responses to Jack’s arguments… well you correct his spellings! Def-i-cits. I’ve been involved in my fair share of online arguments and there is nothing more demoralising after you have put together some careful points for consideration only for your oponent to claim “the truth isn’t on your side.”

    Well this is the truth according to the Tory blogosphere. Its very easy to make generalisations when there is no-one to disagree with you. To claim the ‘right’ won every intellectual argument of the 20th century demonstrates a close-minded individual. Next time you get into an argument can i recommend that you at least listen to your opponent as opposed to spending your time thinking up what your going to come back with next.

    Praguetory – im quite disappointed with you after these outbursts.

    Dan – “I am not going to get involved in a long winded response for it is quite clear we will not agree.”… Likely story.

  31. Pug-nosed gimp Says:

    tom marley, youre going on about the terrible things that people have come out with as arguments (spelling mistakes…) then you say you’re ‘dissapointed with praguetory’. what is that?

  32. Praguetory Says:

    I enjoyed this thread too.

    Come on Tom, you’re not really disappointed with me – I doubt you had high hopes. The repeated mis-spelling of deficits irritated me – not a big issue or part of an argument, just trying to be helpful. I wouldn’t say that the right won every argument of the 20th century, as these debates still rage, but I would say that on the question of state control v private enterprise and all the associated spin-offs I would personally argue that the evidence of the 20th century makes a very powerful case for the advantages of giving precedence to private enterprise where possible.

    I maintain that Brown is a Commie at heart – that doesn’t mean I don’t think he is a credible politician or that he doesn’t have his strengths.

  33. andy Says:

    So were all agreed, i’m right then eh?……

  34. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    “I wouldn’t say that the right won every argument”

    Exactly the point I was making.

    The national debt is not 110% of GDP as it would have been impossible for Brown to spend £700bn extra without massive inflation. The claim that was made has largely been refuted by accountants and economists who place the National debt below the 43% figure.

    Quite what you base the claim that brown is ‘a commie at heart’ is a bit of a mystery. (Or maybe it’s clearly born out of a general hatred and fear of him.)

    Andy, I’m afraid that Prague Tory disagrees with you as the quote suggests. The right did not win every argument of the twentieth century which your failure to defend monetarism or argue for the privatistaion of the NHS demonstrates.

    Australia has had its growth trend shifted by its exploitation of natural resources. We don’t have that option and the last time we had growth on that scale in the UK we had a massive recession to follow.

    “This is because the ‘Right’ in British politics, and pretty much across Europe, won all the intellectual arguments of the Twentieth century. ”

    What you don’t seem to be able to grasp Andy is that to claim this you need to defend every possition the right has taken in the twentieth century which considering that some of them contradict each other is an impossible task. (particularly with posts that short).

  35. Praguetory Says:

    Jack – If you really believe that Australia’s “growth trend shifted” due to exploitation of natural resources you are deluded. I’m finding it uncomfortable that you are trying to make common cause with me.

    As for your claim that it would be “impossible for Brown to spend £700bn without extra inflation” you show a basic misunderstanding of the definition of debts – it represents unpaid liabilities.

    Also, if monetarism is about supply-sided reform v Keynesian state management then I would say that monetarism has won the argument.

    I understand you taking umbrage at Andy’s claim, but that claim can mean all things to all men as it stands. If it means that capitalism is the orthodox and predominant economic system worldwide, I think Andy is right.

    For the record, I think that Quentin’s defection was personal not political.

  36. Dan Says:

    Quentin Davies is an utter cretin. He should resign immediately and let his constituents decide his fate… but he wont because he will lose his job! Thus in principle I agree with Andy.

  37. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    We will not get the same growth trend as Australia without some major change such as the explloitation of new natural resources. 5% growth is not an option.

    In the case of un paid liabilities, it should be counted as projected transfer payments or similar.

    No that’s not what monetarism is, and monetarism was a failure as an economic ideology. (though still usefull incertain areas.) Monetarism concerns the money supply where as supply-sided reform is a much broader concept that goes beyond money. Monetary considerations are certianly more significant now, but the right’s idea that we could control growth in the money supply was an embarrasment to Mrs T.

    “that claim can mean all things to all men as it stands” -So it’s as useless as your leader (or should that be ‘follower’).

    In any case capitalism should be seen as a variable ratherthan an absolute concept. There is no pure capitalism anywhere in the world.

  38. Pug-nosed gimp Says:

    supply side reform means fuck all. you might as well have ‘economic reform’ as your economic ideology

  39. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    Supply side reform has been important in the labour market. the NAIRU is much lower now than in the 1980s as it was a key plank of the 1998 budget.

  40. Louis Says:

    You seem to be having fun without me, but I should point out that debate in my statement above should have had quotes around it. I though Andy had written that the right had won the debate in the twentieth century (he actually wrote “won all the intellectual arguments”, which could be construed as the same thing).

    The problem with many of the arguments on this page is that the twentienth century did not begin in 1970. I can understand that people believe the “right” won the (economic) arguments in 1979 onwards. My argument is that at the beginning of the twentienth century, free-market policies were the domain of the Liberals, with the Conservatives split on the issue, leading to a landslide defeat in 1906. So the argument you won in 1979 was the same ones you opposed at the beginning of the century. Taking on your opponents views is hardly winning the argument!

    What you call Thatcherism, I call neo-liberalism.

    I still believe that socialism won the biggest victories in the twentienth century. I went to school for free, don’t pay to see a doctor, had a heavily subsidised (by the state) University education (tuition fees withstanding) and know people who have been on incapacity benefit, JSA in the 21st century. The Conservatives also believe in keeping these benefits now although they may wish to reform them. If they had held these views at the beginning of the twentieth century, they would have been considered socialist, hence my claim there is an argument to be made that all modern political parties are socialist.

  41. Pug-nosed gimp Says:

    its not socialist not to have to pay to go to school. look at the charges in the NHS now, and look at top up fees. what the fuck are you saying.

  42. Louis Says:

    “its not socialist not to have to pay to go to school”

    An education paid for by the state at a school run by the state sounds pretty socialist to me.

    Charges in the NHS? Prescription charges? A flat fee per drug regardless of the real cost is hardly a free-market approach.

    Top-up fees? Absolutely nothing compared to the cost of the genuinely privatised Universities in America.

  43. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    We had charges in the NHS when Atlee was in number 10.

  44. Pug-nosed gimp Says:

    for an average person there is no way to get your teeth looked at at all without paying. so fuck off.

  45. JACK MATTHEW Says:

    I think you need to calm down. If your lot had had their way you wouldn’t be able to have even the most basic of treatments for free.

  46. Pug-nosed gimp Says:

    you cant

  47. Jack Matthew Says:

    Yes you can. There are people on low incomes who rely on the NHS who would have been screwed previously. (No seriously that’s how they would have to raise the money for treatment.) ; )

  48. top rated hair care products Says:

    top rated hair care products

    top rated hair care products

  49. gps navigation Says:

    gps navigation

    gps navigation

Leave a Reply