|
Post by shrewsace on Aug 13, 2010 13:29:53 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Aug 13, 2010 13:56:08 GMT 1
I know what is more unbelievable is the govermant saying they will find people jobs but everyday on the news you hear of more job cuts. Instead of all this aid for poorer countries why dont the goverment save small firms from going to the wall? I know why as they all want to be arse kissers and make England look good worldwide but with in these shores the goverment look a joke.That goes for every goverment over the last 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 13, 2010 14:08:53 GMT 1
It's not up to the governement to save anyone from going bust - you only end up with a weak, subsidised economy.
Overseas aid is a tiny proportion of national spending and it's what any wealthy (and we are still wealthy, in relative terms) country should do. I don't know what you mean by "looking good" but, even if the moral argument doesn't cut it with you, there's an economic self-interest in helping other countries develop - bigger global markets.
Meanwhile, back at the ConDem ranch, how sickening was it to see Baroness Warsi defending the closure of children's playgrounds behind a banner reading "Labour's Legacy"? She claimed there was simply no choice and it wasn't the government's responsibility.
Of course it's their responsibility. Let's be clear about this. The ConDem's have chosen the route of massive spending cuts. They didn't (and don't) have to. It's their policy, based on their own economic theories, and there are alternatives.
Hiding behind a banner and pretending that it's all someone else's responsibility is cowardice. They should have the courage of their own convictions, the chinless wimps.
|
|
|
Post by SouthStandShrew on Aug 13, 2010 14:15:42 GMT 1
Typical but expected.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Aug 13, 2010 14:19:20 GMT 1
It's not up to the governement to save anyone from going bust - you only end up with a weak, subsidised economy. Overseas aid is a tiny proportion of national spending and it's what any wealthy (and we are still wealthy, in relative terms) country should do. I don't know what you mean by "looking good" but, even if the moral argument doesn't cut it So the govermant did not bail out the banks? The money sent to poorer countries would not of saved little firms like the the holiday company who went bust yesterday? Would the money sent not kept people in work in places like surestart and save kids lives and give support to the less well off families in this country?
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Aug 13, 2010 15:10:19 GMT 1
Think there is potential for lessons from the business world to be transfered to public spending, but we should never loose sight of the fact that businesses are there to make money - large parts of the public sector will never make money so need a different approach.
As for the overseas aid budget this is currently around £9 billion a year, but is less that 0.7% of GDP, which is the level the United Nations set a few years ago. To put that in context the bank bail out cost £850 billion, and the governement debt each year is approximatley £150-170 billion
|
|
|
Post by africanshrew on Aug 13, 2010 15:17:15 GMT 1
I know what is more unbelievable is the govermant saying they will find people jobs but everyday on the news you hear of more job cuts. Instead of all this aid for poorer countries why dont the goverment save small firms from going to the wall? I know why as they all want to be arse kissers and make England look good worldwide but with in these shores the goverment look a joke.That goes for every goverment over the last 30 years. I agree with the original post - Philip Green's appointment says a lot about who will benefit from the ConDems and who's steering the ship. The point about overseas aid is a Daily Mail-eque over simplification. Aid makes up a tiny proportion of public spending (if only we did meet or 0.7% commitment, we don't). Do we have a moral obligation to help other human beings in desperate need who happen to be born of a different piece of land? I think we do. But moralising aside, there are sound security and economic arguments for aid spend - in an ever more globalised world ignoring both risks and opportunities in developing countries is not an option. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why China is investing billions in Africa having shown little or no interest in the continent until recently....
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Aug 13, 2010 15:28:14 GMT 1
I know what is more unbelievable is the govermant saying they will find people jobs but everyday on the news you hear of more job cuts. Instead of all this aid for poorer countries why dont the goverment save small firms from going to the wall? I know why as they all want to be arse kissers and make England look good worldwide but with in these shores the goverment look a joke.That goes for every goverment over the last 30 years. I agree with the original post - Philip Green's appointment says a lot about who will benefit from the ConDems and who's steering the ship. The point about overseas aid is a Daily Mail-eque over simplification. Aid makes up a tiny proportion of public spending (if only we did meet or 0.7% commitment, we don't). Do we have a moral obligation to help other human beings in desperate need who happen to be born of a different piece of land? No we dont
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Aug 13, 2010 15:33:34 GMT 1
Would that 9 billion be better spent on bring schools upto grade in places like the west midlands?
would that 9 billion be better spent on police and keeping people safe in this country?
I even think that 9 billion ould be better spent on making out road saffer than being sent abroad.
Just out of interest did you see that the flood victims in Pakistan wanted money sent to them instead of clothes and food so they could spend the cash in their own country? Do you hink that is taking the p**s and they are luaghing at other countries that are trying to help
|
|
|
Post by africanshrew on Aug 13, 2010 15:40:44 GMT 1
I agree with the original post - Philip Green's appointment says a lot about who will benefit from the ConDems and who's steering the ship. The point about overseas aid is a Daily Mail-eque over simplification. Aid makes up a tiny proportion of public spending (if only we did meet or 0.7% commitment, we don't). Do we have a moral obligation to help other human beings in desperate need who happen to be born of a different piece of land? No we dont Fair enough, an interesting if depressing take on humanity. But I notice that you've decided to ignore the economic and security arguements - possibly because you've already made your mind up?
|
|
|
Post by africanshrew on Aug 13, 2010 16:03:07 GMT 1
I'll avoid the moral argument cos that's not your bag, but here you go... Would that 9 billion be better spent on bring schools upto grade in places like the west midlands? A - Possibly, given your spelling. Without pursuing economic opportunities in major growth economies (most of which are transition or developing countries) UK competitiveness will decrease and they'll be less cash for your West Midlands Schools, Pedigree Chum for your Bulldog and so on. Overseas development is part of this process, but the current system is far from perfect would that 9 billion be better spent on police and keeping people safe in this country? A- Would we be safer with a few more Somalias on the planet? Think about it. We live in a smaller world today, wake up. I even think that 9 billion ould be better spent on making out road saffer than being sent abroad. See schools answer. Just out of interest did you see that the flood victims in Pakistan wanted money sent to them instead of clothes and food so they could spend the cash in their own country? Do you hink that is taking the p**s and they are luaghing at other countries that are trying to help[/quote] No, I don't think someone sitting on their roof with their remaining family watching their merge possessions disappear downstream would be laughing. Is corruption a major issue in developing countries, yes. Should donors do more to stop it, yes. Can cash be better than shipping out aid, yes, the money is recycled in the local economy thus less aid is required in the long term. Local markets are not distorted by 'aid dumping' and countries recover sooner. Hence increasing use of cash transfers and 'cash for work' programmes in post-disaster situations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2010 16:05:52 GMT 1
Totally agree with Heavenlyshrew.
Foreign Aid should be abolished and made into a voluntary scheme. Whether it's 0.7% or 0.07%, it is still money in principal that should not be handed out to others while ordinary members of the British population continue to suffer.
Let the namby pamby liberals donate if they wish, but I'd rather see tax payer's money spent on improving Britain and not subsidising countries that openly detest Western civilisation.
|
|
|
Post by africanshrew on Aug 13, 2010 16:19:15 GMT 1
Totally agree with Heavenlyshrew. Foreign Aid should be abolished and made into a voluntary scheme. Whether it's 0.7% or 0.07%, it is still money in principal that should not be handed out to others while ordinary members of the British population continue to suffer. Let the namby pamby liberals donate if they wish, but I'd rather see tax payer's money spent on improving Britain and not subsidising countries that openly detest Western civilisation. . Happy to be a namby pamby liberal in that case...
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Aug 13, 2010 16:31:12 GMT 1
Just one question Aricanshrew.These rains are a act of god that makes them no ones fault.I could understand us giving aid if we had flattened some country and we rebuilt house and shops for innocent people to live in.you are forgetting Pakistan has a wealthy goverment too they should fit the bill.
|
|
|
Post by africanshrew on Aug 13, 2010 16:46:22 GMT 1
Just one question Aricanshrew.These rains are a act of god that makes them no ones fault.I could understand us giving aid if we had flattened some country and we rebuilt house and shops for innocent people to live in.you are forgetting Pakistan has a wealthy goverment too they should fit the bill. You seem to be mistaking a natural disaster for an insurance claim. In this case emegency aid isn't about identifying blame its about helping people in need who are suffering, something you have already said doesn't matter to you. Do you think the UK could manage without exturnal help if a third of the nation was underwater? The GDP per capita of Pakistan is a 35th of the UK... Still ignoring the economic and security arguements for aid I see, at least in Lionel Ainsworth there's one right winger in Shrewsbury with some substance
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 13, 2010 17:07:20 GMT 1
I agree with the original post - Philip Green's appointment says a lot about who will benefit from the ConDems and who's steering the ship. The point about overseas aid is a Daily Mail-eque over simplification. Aid makes up a tiny proportion of public spending (if only we did meet or 0.7% commitment, we don't). Do we have a moral obligation to help other human beings in desperate need who happen to be born of a different piece of land? No we dont I've gathered the moral argument doesn't wash with you. Why doesn't the economic self-interest argument do it for you then?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 13, 2010 17:16:41 GMT 1
It's not up to the governement to save anyone from going bust - you only end up with a weak, subsidised economy. Overseas aid is a tiny proportion of national spending and it's what any wealthy (and we are still wealthy, in relative terms) country should do. I don't know what you mean by "looking good" but, even if the moral argument doesn't cut it So the govermant did not bail out the banks? The money sent to poorer countries would not of saved little firms like the the holiday company who went bust yesterday? Would the money sent not kept people in work in places like surestart and save kids lives and give support to the less well off families in this country? Like it or not, the banks are a different case. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to fall, the banking system almost went into meltdown. If that had happened, millions of businesses worldwide would have failed and there would have been panic throughout the population when they realised the cash machines had stopped working. It shouldn't be that way but it is so we have to make the best of it. Frankly, I do care more about, for example, Pakistani flood victims than I do about a small holiday company going bust. Times may be hard and it's tough for their customers but, if it had been a better business, it wouldn't have gone bust. If your home and livelihood gets washed away, literally, you deserve a bit of support. Everything's relative and we're relatively rich.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Aug 13, 2010 17:24:59 GMT 1
We might be a well off country but we are not a endless pot. Now we are starting to see that. Crumbling school,under pressure hospitals,no jobs for school leavers or collage or uni leavers. Massive job cuts in the public sector.
Whoever said we have never had it so good would not be able to say that nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 13, 2010 17:26:57 GMT 1
Totally agree with Heavenlyshrew. Foreign Aid should be abolished and made into a voluntary scheme. Whether it's 0.7% or 0.07%, it is still money in principal that should not be handed out to others while ordinary members of the British population continue to suffer. Let the namby pamby liberals donate if they wish, but I'd rather see tax payer's money spent on improving Britain and not subsidising countries that openly detest Western civilisation. [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img] . Happy to be a namby pamby liberal in that case... [/quote] Namby pamby liberal army! I'm joining. What is it with these people and their precious national boundaries? Does humanity stop at Dover? Shall we just say "shame about your natural disaster but we need to resurface the A5"? I'm sure your views would be entirely consistent if the roles were reversed.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Aug 13, 2010 17:31:07 GMT 1
No humanity does not stop at dover but that is where the goverment stop spending our money.As for you saying if the roles were reversed they aint got money to send us that is why they are cap in hand on tv adverts in the Uk.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Aug 13, 2010 17:45:54 GMT 1
Total GDP in Pakistan is $450 billion and the per capita GDP is $2713
Total GDP in the UK is $2000 trillion, and per capita GDP is $35,000
Based on these figures I'm pretty comfortable with the UK sending aid to countries like pakistan, who by western terms are hardly wealthy. Such disparity in wealth can't do anyone any favours, especially when rather a lot of the UK's wealth has come from the odd trip abroad to "borrow" resources from other countries.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 13, 2010 17:48:41 GMT 1
No humanity does not stop at dover but that is where the goverment stop spending our money.As for you saying if the roles were reversed they aint got money to send us that is why they are cap in hand on tv adverts in the Uk. Wrong - we spend within the EU, we spend all over the world through our armed forces, we spend overseas through our commitments to organisations like the British Council, which represents British cultural interests worldwide. We're part of a global society and we need people elsewhere to have a favourable impression of us and want to do business here. Just keep the self-interest point in mind for a minute. Africanshrew made the excellent point about China's multi-billion investments in Africa. Why have they done that? Because Africa is ripe for massive economic expansion. India is already a huge economy and will continue to grow. That doesn't mean it's rich - the per capita income is way below ours. But you can go on thinking of it as a basket case while the rest of the world moves on and recognises a major trading partner and business opportunity. The world changes. We could bury our heads in the sand and pretend we're looking after our interests by keeping every penny of government money in the UK. In fact, we'd be leading the country to ruin. I prefer the namby pamby liberal argument, but the hard nosed capitalist argument does it as well.
|
|
|
Post by africanshrew on Aug 13, 2010 17:49:06 GMT 1
No humanity does not stop at dover but that is where the goverment stop spending our money.As for you saying if the roles were reversed they aint got money to send us that is why they are cap in hand on tv adverts in the Uk. Er, I thought you said they had the money ("you are forgetting Pakistan has a wealthy goverment too they should fit the bill"), now they don't?! Or have you been told something by the imaginary drowning Pakistani who was apparently laughing at you earlier?!! "No humanity does not stop at dover but that is where the goverment stop spending our money" - so your latest suggestion is a total withdrawal from international trade (UKTI uses your taxes overseas in addition to our involvement in WTO), the Security Council, international environmental negotiations and god knows what else?! I think your life would be dramatically different a probably not much to your taste in this little Englander world of yours...
|
|
|
Post by africanshrew on Aug 13, 2010 17:52:39 GMT 1
I prefer the namby pamby liberal argument, but the hard nosed capitalist argument does it as well.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 13, 2010 17:57:13 GMT 1
No humanity does not stop at dover but that is where the goverment stop spending our money.As for you saying if the roles were reversed they aint got money to send us that is why they are cap in hand on tv adverts in the Uk. Oh yeah, and the role reversal point was that, if you were sitting on your roof while the flood waters rose and you didn't have a bean in the world to rebuild your life (not to mention that you might just have lost family members in the floods), I trust you and Crippen would tell the government of a wealthy nation offering help that they should keep their money for themselves. That would be sticking to your principles, after all. Crippen won't even go to the Meadow so he remains true to his principles so I'm sure he'd have no problem with this one.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Aug 13, 2010 18:36:11 GMT 1
"My family are not tax exiles, they just happen to live in Monaco" - Phillip Green.
Very depressing, but predictable, is the emphasis on cracking down on benefit fraud and no mention of a similar attitude towards tax evasion.
It is reported that 30% of Britain's major companies pay no corporation tax and 60% pay less than £! million a year and tax evasion is at the rate of £70 billion per year.
People need to think why it is that the media and politicians point the finger at the poor both here and abroad but ignore the rich and powerful who do not pay their fair share.
|
|
|
Post by barrynic on Aug 13, 2010 18:50:08 GMT 1
Heavenly I know for a fact that if you had a friend in trouble you would help out unconditionally --- True..
Pakistan has been a very good friend to us and the USA recently would you not agree?
|
|
|
Post by gingashrew on Aug 13, 2010 22:22:14 GMT 1
The industrial revolution started here, contributed to global warming, which is contributing to these extreme weather systems. How can you possibly argue we have no responsibility to use any of the wealth we gained by endangering the developing world to reduce their hardship?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2010 22:29:00 GMT 1
I trust you and Crippen would tell the government of a wealthy nation offering help that they should keep their money for themselves. No problem with bailing out a country in the event of a devastating natural disaster. Routinely dolling out billions of pounds is, however, an entirely different matter.
|
|
|
Post by jimbobhufc on Aug 13, 2010 23:30:20 GMT 1
|
|