That's one reason India is an attractive proposition for retiring. Servants are much more reasonable than in England. It's not exploitation so long as you pay a proper salary.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
If Britain is to have a stable, affordable pension system, people need to work longer, but we will reward their hard work with a decent state pension that will enable them to enjoy quality of life in their retirement.
I might have made more money if I had outsourced to India, and I knew I'd find it easier to hire senior managers in London. But I wanted to be in Stoke. What could be more satisfying than creating work for 3,000 people in my home town?
Our workforce is very co-operative, very flexible, easy to work with and one of the big selling points. The idea that Britain is still back in the labour market of the '70s is utterly bizarre.
London is a fantastic creator of jobs - but many of these jobs are going to people who don't originate in this country.
Never had there been such an attempt to make conquest the servant of civilization. About keeping India there is no question. England has a real duty there.
You have to be very rich to afford Labour, with 66 tax rises since they came in power.
Some government workers are dedicated and work hard, but most of them are just waiting to retire.
Because of lower life expectancy in Scotland - something that we are working hard to improve - the average woman will get £11,000 less in pension payments than counterparts in the rest of the U.K., even though she will pay exactly the same in contributions.
I have lived and worked in Britain all my life. Not even in the dark days of penal Labour taxation in the Seventies did I have any intention of leaving the country of my birth.
I wouldn't consider retiring to India: there are too many people, and it's difficult walking along the pavements. I'd love to spend two or three months a year there.