UK General Election 2015

[brenflys777]

Wombat3 said:

What other outcomes/options do you think are realistically possible at this juncture?

As I said, if foreign aid and some of the other stuff you mention is what determines your vote then good luck to you. In the grand scheme of things its utterly irrelevant IMO. Its very easy to criticise foreign aid and I am not 100% convinced by everything we do with it. Equally I am of the view that it is a tool that we need to let the government use. In the wider context we are an extremely wealthy country with very high living standards.

For me economic stability that creates an environment in which I can achieve something is far more important than these kind of minutae. Putting that at risk will make a far bigger difference to me than whether we spend £5Bn on foreign aid or £15Bn. OTOH its clear what you do for a living & so you probably enjoy a level of employment, income and pension certainty not enjoyed by many (and good luck to you for it). Perhaps if you ran a small business where those things are far less certain your priorities might be different.

Many conservatives are also frankly tired of being kicked and criticised for trying to sort the st out & make some progress. Its no wonder tempers get frayed. This government is given so little credit for what it has achieved it beggars belief IMO. Doesn't get everything right by a long shot but overall, in consideration of the circumstances, its been a very good government for this country. It could have been SO much worse - and yet they get the st kicked out of them at all levels week in, week out.

Its also plain that basically every single Labour government we have had in the last 40 years has been a disaster (with a couple of near misses in Kinnoch & Foot thrown in). Every one has caused long term economic damage. Not every Tory Gov't has been brilliant but none has fked things up as badly as the other lot. The current opposition is also so weak and incompetent that the idea that its worth risking Mili-balls having their hands on the credit card is beyond stupidity to me.

As to the policing issue - you keep harping on about that one - and yet I am not aware of there being any major crime wave that is not being addressed. It looks like criticism for the sake of criticism when there are so many more pressing issues. If your issue is that something was said about protecting the police budgets and it wasn't done well, "There's no money left" .... remember that one? All roads lead to that one and there is still a structural deficit & we are still spending £90Bn more than we earn per year.

Meanwhile, over in the Kipper thread someone (of a deeply purple persuasion) was pontificating only the other day as to how it was a good thing that (UKIP) politicians should change their ideas and policies to suit circumstances. But what's good for the UKIP goose, is apparently not good for the Tory Gander it seems

As to Syria, there is also never a foreign "intervention" that is free from its critics. Whatever the situation was around the Syria thing I am pretty certain of two things:

a) Those at the centre of government have more information to base their decisions on than I do (and that's what I pay/elect them to do)

and

b) I'm pretty sure (whichever party they are from) they don't sit around the cabinet table going "whoop, whoop, tally-ho chaps. Anyone fancy a punch-up? Who can we go to war with this week??"

Edited by Wombat3 on Wednesday 4th February 23:08

The outcomes of this election have so many variables UKIP/SNP/LIB DEM that I think the only sure thing is that there is no sure thing. For that reason alone I think tactical voting is not just weak, but possibly pointless. The options for me are easy, vote for the party with the best fit or don't vote.

It is - as you said - easy to criticise foreign aid. The reason is because it is hard if not impossible to evidence a benefit to the UK but very easy to show evidence of corruption and waste. I've not met a conservative/lib deem or labour voter who is in favour of increasing foreign aid whilst making austerity cuts, but for whatever reason the MPs of all parties seem to accept it is normal. The foreign aid bill next year exceeds the Policing costs for the whole of the UK, this is not a minor issue, this is serious money being skunked abroad whilst we are told cuts at home are essential. It's not conservative and it erodes any legitimacy in being parsimonious elsewhere. The crime figures are not reflective of the whole situation and some of the cuts will only be felt at a point when it becomes very difficult to correct due to lead in time.

My standard of living is reliant on passing a medical once a year (lap of the Gods) and twice annually being tested in the simulator for two days during which my ability to perform my job is assessed critically. A further day a year involves being assessed on the line plying my trade. If MPs were assessed for competence in a similar way I suspect their chances of job security would be lower than mine

The point you make about Labour governments probably stands as a general rule, but confidence is a big factor in politics. Look at what Boris achieves in London! In 97' Blair was a conservative PM with a social conscious masquerading as a Labour MP. Confidence was high and things went well. It went wrong later when the old Labour values re asserted themselves and Blair went wild eyed Maggie early. Milliband might be disastrous but he would ensure a properly conservative PM next time, if tactical voting is about thinking big picture, Milliband might be the best thing to happen to the conservatives since the Argies invaded the Falklands.

The change of policies on the UKIP thread is something else. At the moment the conservative and Labour seem very tribal to me, to the point if someone on the other team does something good, the other side seem too keen to criticise because it's not theirs...but on the big issues of EU Lisbon/boundary change/lords reform etc Cameron asks us to accept that circumstances change whilst claiming the right to claim moral superiority and ignore public opinion on foreign aid. It is nonsense.

Edited by brenflys777 on Wednesday 4th February 23:59

[hidetheelephants]

wc98 said:

i must live in a parallel country to this pro eu scotland ,i know not one single person that is pro eu from a fairly diverse group.

The essenpee are quite keen on euroballs, as are chunks of the Aye campaign as was. I think both rotten edifices, Strasbourg and Brussels, need torching, ideally with the gravy train fkwits still inside. The common market is a good idea, as is Schengen; uncontrolled migration not so much and the rest is an expensive employment scheme for wkers who can't find gainful employment doing something useful and a honeypot for fraudsters, spivs and assorted professional handwringers.

[McWigglebum4th]

Wombat3 said:

Die hard kippers will do what they do & seem to think its all great fun & a grand wheeze. Idiots IMO -

I want to try a wee experiment

You tory boys are abject fking idiot, you don't have a single brain cell, you only vote tory because your mum told you too, you are incapable of rational thought, you hate white people, you shag chickens, you smell funny, your breath smells of fart, you are all virgins, your mother was a hamster, you are denying a village their idiot, your father smelt of elderberries etc and so on

Going to vote UKIP now?

Thought not

Calling kippers idiots doesn't help your cause

[Esseesse]

brenflys777 said:

It is - as you said - easy to criticise foreign aid. The reason is because it is hard if not impossible to evidence a benefit to the UK but very easy to show evidence of corruption and waste. I've not met a conservative/lib deem or labour voter who is in favour of increasing foreign aid whilst making austerity cuts, but for whatever reason the MPs of all parties seem to accept it is normal.

A caller (sounded older and educated) on LBC the other day was explaining that pre-EU all foreign aid had to be spent with British companies. I think those in receipt of aid probably never saw any money, but had a budget that they could spend with British companies that our government would fund. This was good because it got our industry a foot hold in these places around the world, and hopefully future business would follow.

When we joined the EU we were told that this was not allowed, and all foreign aid had to be given in cash.

[Bluebarge]

wc98 said:

i must live in a parallel country to this pro eu scotland ,i know not one single person that is pro eu from a fairly diverse group.

Well the SNP, the Lib Dems and Labour are all pro-EU, so I think that only leaves one constituency where the sitting MP's party is ambivalent. Perhaps you should spend less time at the Old Fettesian Golf Club

[BlackLabel]

Clegg trails Labour by 10 points in a Survation constituency poll.

http://survation.com/poll-in-nick-cleggs-sheffield...

I wonder if these kind of polls change the voting intention of Tory voters in the constituency. You know your party can't win this seat so do you vote for Clegg to keep Labour out or do you vote Labour in order to humiliate Clegg?

[Munter]

McWigglebum4th said:

I want to try a wee experiment

You tory boys are abject fking idiot, you don't have a single brain cell, you only vote tory because your mum told you too, you are incapable of rational thought, you hate white people, you shag chickens, you smell funny, your breath smells of fart, you are all virgins, your mother was a hamster, you are denying a village their idiot, your father smelt of elderberries etc and so on

Going to vote UKIP now?

Thought not

Calling kippers idiots doesn't help your cause

Oh now come on. My Mum couldn't tell me how to vote and be a hamster. It's this kind of fundamental flaw that brings down every UKIP policy in the end.

2/10. Derivative, contradictory and lacks the word .

[longblackcoat]

Esseesse said:

When we joined the EU we were told that this was not allowed, and all foreign aid had to be given in cash.

Categorically untrue, however much people might like to believe it. The attached parliamentary extract (long, boring) warns that expenditure elsewhere is in many cases simply being reclassified as foreign aid to get to the proposed 0.7% target. Front-line diplomacy services, to give one example, make up a chunk of what is classified as foreign aid, and that certainly isn't paid in cash. Peacekeeping costs have also been included in the aid budget.



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

[Esseesse]

longblackcoat said:

Esseesse said:

When we joined the EU we were told that this was not allowed, and all foreign aid had to be given in cash.

Categorically untrue, however much people might like to believe it. The attached parliamentary extract (long, boring) warns that expenditure elsewhere is in many cases simply being reclassified as foreign aid to get to the proposed 0.7% target. Front-line diplomacy services, to give one example, make up a chunk of what is classified as foreign aid, and that certainly isn't paid in cash. Peacekeeping costs have also been included in the aid budget.



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Ok, other than those things that certainly isn't cash, are we allowed to stipulate that foreign aid is spent with British companies?

Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 5th February 09:46

[longblackcoat]

Esseesse said:

longblackcoat said:

Esseesse said:

When we joined the EU we were told that this was not allowed, and all foreign aid had to be given in cash.

Categorically untrue, however much people might like to believe it. The attached parliamentary extract (long, boring) warns that expenditure elsewhere is in many cases simply being reclassified as foreign aid to get to the proposed 0.7% target. Front-line diplomacy services, to give one example, make up a chunk of what is classified as foreign aid, and that certainly isn't paid in cash. Peacekeeping costs have also been included in the aid budget.



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Ok, other than those things that certainly isn't cash, are we allowed to stipulate that foreign aid is spent with British companies?

Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 5th February 09:46

Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.

But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.

[Scuffers]

longblackcoat said:

Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.

But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.

so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?

[longblackcoat]

Scuffers said:

longblackcoat said:

Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.

But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.

so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?

No idea what you're on about. Presumably you have a point to make, so why not make it?

[Scuffers]

longblackcoat said:

Scuffers said:

longblackcoat said:

Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.

But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.

so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?

No idea what you're on about. Presumably you have a point to make, so why not make it?

Just for you.....

UK aid cash helped African dictator buy himself a £30m jet

[Esseesse]

longblackcoat said:

Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.

But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.

Thanks for the reply. I don't think we know conclusively then whether the way aid is dished out has or has not changed since EU, but your explanation about how the total budget is made up of various things (certainly not all cash) is useful to know (and something I was not clued up about).

Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 5th February 15:23

[longblackcoat]

Scuffers said:

longblackcoat said:

Scuffers said:

longblackcoat said:

Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.

But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.

so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?

No idea what you're on about. Presumably you have a point to make, so why not make it?

Just for you.....

UK aid cash helped African dictator buy himself a £30m jet

Cheers for that - I wasn't aware. And although I'm firmly committed to foreign aid, and as lefty as you (wouldn't) like, if we've paid for even a part of that, I'd not seek to defend it for an instant. It's the sort of thing that undermines all the good that foreign aid does.

[anonymous-user]

longblackcoat said:

Cheers for that - I wasn't aware. And although I'm firmly committed to foreign aid, and as lefty as you (wouldn't) like, if we've paid for even a part of that, I'd not seek to defend it for an instant. It's the sort of thing that undermines all the good that foreign aid does.

At least it has RR engines so wasn't a total loss

[Scuffers]

longblackcoat said:

Cheers for that - I wasn't aware. And although I'm firmly committed to foreign aid, and as lefty as you (wouldn't) like, if we've paid for even a part of that, I'd not seek to defend it for an instant. It's the sort of thing that undermines all the good that foreign aid does.

Look, I am not against the idea of foreign aid, the problem is that we have now is nothing of the sort.

Take the Ebola outbreak, we did NOTHING for over 12 months, when if we had, probably could have broken the back of it with a few million (if that).

look at what comic relief get done with a few million a year, or medicine sans frontier, or the red cross.

now look at what we puch what? £13Bn into and tell me it's money well spent?

I have no problem with the idea of ~£1-2Bn being spent on real aid/relief work, and I suspect if it was managed right, it would make a massive difference.

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

£13Bn into and tell me it's money well spent?

Is there a breakdown anywhere? 13bn should buy quite a lot of food and medicine.

[Scuffers]

fblm said:

Is there a breakdown anywhere? 13bn should buy quite a lot of food and medicine.

best I can find is this (2013):

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

[JustAnotherLogin]

Scuffers said:

longblackcoat said:

Scuffers said:

longblackcoat said:

Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.

But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.

so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?

No idea what you're on about. Presumably you have a point to make, so why not make it?

Just for you.....

UK aid cash helped African dictator buy himself a £30m jet

But all that says is that in the same year we gave £70m of aid to Uganda he bought the jet. Unless I missed it (and I was reading quickly) there is no suggestion we gave the money to him or it was used for that. Now I agree you can argue against giving aid to corrupt countries, but I'm afraid we may not be able to give out much aid if we did.


As for a breakdown, there is a on a simpler level this