UK General Election 2015
Discussion
JustAnotherLogin said:
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
take it up with Lord Ashcroft, he established the link (it's in the article).As for a breakdown, there is a on a simpler level this
as for that breakdown, you will note it's only some £4.2Bn, what about the other £9Bn?
On a more general note I think people are more sanguine about the merits of foreign aid but have difficulty dealing with aid to nations who are spending money on things that we, as a nation, have said that basically we cannot afford this.
Of course there may be specific circumstances where the benefit to UK is there, even in such a national situation, but the reasons for the aid aren't clear.
People are also generous in cases of real need. The problem seems to be around fixing a budget which must be spent, viz the recent blowing, let's be honest but it was blowing, a staggering amount simply because it was year end. Just a larger version of what people see councils doing.
There may be significantly less objection if the government said we have a budget of x, and we will spend up to that, but if we don't find sufficient meritorious needs then we will spend under budget. If they'd spent the budget then that was it till next year.
Of course someone will now say, but what happens if it's near the year end, the budget is spent and a massive crisis occurs, e.g. Boxing Day tsunami. Again I think people are adult enough if the Government said that okay we're going to overspend this year but it comes out of next year's budget. It's how real life and real people spending their own money works. The car engine drops a valve and the £2500 repair bill means that the villa holiday in Tuscany turns into a caravan at Filey.
People in the main are far more adult about things than politicians and some posters give them credit.
Of course there may be specific circumstances where the benefit to UK is there, even in such a national situation, but the reasons for the aid aren't clear.
People are also generous in cases of real need. The problem seems to be around fixing a budget which must be spent, viz the recent blowing, let's be honest but it was blowing, a staggering amount simply because it was year end. Just a larger version of what people see councils doing.
There may be significantly less objection if the government said we have a budget of x, and we will spend up to that, but if we don't find sufficient meritorious needs then we will spend under budget. If they'd spent the budget then that was it till next year.
Of course someone will now say, but what happens if it's near the year end, the budget is spent and a massive crisis occurs, e.g. Boxing Day tsunami. Again I think people are adult enough if the Government said that okay we're going to overspend this year but it comes out of next year's budget. It's how real life and real people spending their own money works. The car engine drops a valve and the £2500 repair bill means that the villa holiday in Tuscany turns into a caravan at Filey.
People in the main are far more adult about things than politicians and some posters give them credit.
brenflys777 said:
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.
The outcomes of this election are that either we will have a Tory or Labour led government with either Cameron or Miliband as PM.Nothing else is remotely possible.
Wombat3 said:
brenflys777 said:
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.
The outcomes of this election are that either we will have a Tory or Labour led government with either Cameron or Miliband as PM.Nothing else is remotely possible.
Firstly lots of other results are possible. They may be less likely but not impossible. How many predicted a LibDem coalition with Cameron….
Secondly, the evidence of the last election shows we can't rely on a majority win, and I'd suggest it is perfectly reasonable to say that as we don't have a presidential system, the next PM whilst likely to be the leader of the strongest party may not be the same leader that failed to deliver a win in the election.
Esseesse said:
BlackLabel said:
FiF said:
ON the question of, if he is leader after 2015GE, will Cameron deliver a referendum or not, I think he will, if he didn't, he and the Conservative party are toast and deservedly so.
Cameron promised an in/out referendum "if the Conservative party wins the election". Their chances of winning the election are very slim - it's about 7/1 at the bookies just now for a Con majority."Gove hints at EU referendum coalition red line
Asked whether a promise to hold an EU referendum could be dropped due to Coalition negotiations, Michael Gove told an LBC Radio phone-in:
“We are absolutely 100% committed to a referendum, no ifs, not buts … If David Cameron is Prime Minister we’re going to have a referendum by 2017.”Asked whether a promise to hold an EU referendum could be dropped due to Coalition negotiations, Michael Gove told an LBC Radio phone-in:
“We are absolutely 100% committed to a referendum, no ifs, not buts … If David Cameron is Prime Minister we’re going to have a referendum by 2017."
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articl...
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
brenflys777 said:
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.
The outcomes of this election are that either we will have a Tory or Labour led government with either Cameron or Miliband as PM.Nothing else is remotely possible.
Firstly lots of other results are possible. They may be less likely but not impossible. How many predicted a LibDem coalition with Cameron….
Secondly, the evidence of the last election shows we can't rely on a majority win, and I'd suggest it is perfectly reasonable to say that as we don't have a presidential system, the next PM whilst likely to be the leader of the strongest party may not be the same leader that failed to deliver a win in the election.
Noted that you do not even offer any suggestion as to what these mythical other "options" might be.
As much as it may suit Conservative narrative to point this out, equally it does not suit the likes of UKIP for people to consider things in that way for obvious reasons - which is of course why you don't like it.
brenflys777 said:
So if say his Chancellor stepped in as a result of coalition, then Cameron could move aside for the good of the country… and still no referendum.
Voting conservative, even getting a conservative majority does not guarantee a referendum.
Tinfoil hat time!Voting conservative, even getting a conservative majority does not guarantee a referendum.
If its in the Conservative manifesto (which it will be) its highly unlikely that an incoming PM (unless it was Ken Clarke!) would deviate from it.
More Kipperish scaremongering with little foundation
brenflys777 said:
So if say his Chancellor stepped in as a result of coalition, then Cameron could move aside for the good of the country… and still no referendum.
Voting conservative, even getting a conservative majority does not guarantee a referendum.
Short of actually having had the referendum, it's impossible to give an absolute 100% unbreakable guarantee, is it? And if you're seriously suggesting that Cameron is so wedded to the EU, that he would rather give up the Premiership than have a referendum, I think you need to understand political leaders and their motivations rather better.Voting conservative, even getting a conservative majority does not guarantee a referendum.
Wombat you said no other result is remotely possible. That is wrong.
Other results are possible, but less likely. The promises the conservatives about a referendum are phrased very carefully that if David Cameron is PM then we will get one in 2017. I've pointed out that even if the Tories win, or most numerous in a coalition again, then it does not follow that he will be PM in 2017.
You are presenting this as a simple choice between Milliband and Cameron as PM, I agree it's the most likely outcome at the moment, but it is blinkered to pretend it is the only possible outcome.
Other results are possible, but less likely. The promises the conservatives about a referendum are phrased very carefully that if David Cameron is PM then we will get one in 2017. I've pointed out that even if the Tories win, or most numerous in a coalition again, then it does not follow that he will be PM in 2017.
You are presenting this as a simple choice between Milliband and Cameron as PM, I agree it's the most likely outcome at the moment, but it is blinkered to pretend it is the only possible outcome.
longblackcoat said:
brenflys777 said:
So if say his Chancellor stepped in as a result of coalition, then Cameron could move aside for the good of the country… and still no referendum.
Voting conservative, even getting a conservative majority does not guarantee a referendum.
Short of actually having had the referendum, it's impossible to give an absolute 100% unbreakable guarantee, is it? And if you're seriously suggesting that Cameron is so wedded to the EU, that he would rather give up the Premiership than have a referendum, I think you need to understand political leaders and their motivations rather better.Voting conservative, even getting a conservative majority does not guarantee a referendum.
brenflys777 said:
longblackcoat said:
brenflys777 said:
So if say his Chancellor stepped in as a result of coalition, then Cameron could move aside for the good of the country… and still no referendum.
Voting conservative, even getting a conservative majority does not guarantee a referendum.
Short of actually having had the referendum, it's impossible to give an absolute 100% unbreakable guarantee, is it? And if you're seriously suggesting that Cameron is so wedded to the EU, that he would rather give up the Premiership than have a referendum, I think you need to understand political leaders and their motivations rather better.Voting conservative, even getting a conservative majority does not guarantee a referendum.
Cameron will be either the leader of the biggest or second biggest party. In the incredibly unlikely event that the Conservatives come second by just a few seats AND UKIP have sufficient seats to swing a workable coalition, then there might be a leadership change. But that leader would have to be more, not less, in favour of a referendum. And in the more likely event that the LibDems have the swing seats, why would Cameron change when he's been PM for five years with them already?
brenflys777 said:
Wombat you said no other result is remotely possible. That is wrong.
Other results are possible, but less likely. The promises the conservatives about a referendum are phrased very carefully that if David Cameron is PM then we will get one in 2017. I've pointed out that even if the Tories win, or most numerous in a coalition again, then it does not follow that he will be PM in 2017.
You are presenting this as a simple choice between Milliband and Cameron as PM, I agree it's the most likely outcome at the moment, but it is blinkered to pretend it is the only possible outcome.
What other outcomes have anything more than say 1% chance of occurring? Again, you don't seem to want to take the opportunity to even suggest what else is possible....?Other results are possible, but less likely. The promises the conservatives about a referendum are phrased very carefully that if David Cameron is PM then we will get one in 2017. I've pointed out that even if the Tories win, or most numerous in a coalition again, then it does not follow that he will be PM in 2017.
You are presenting this as a simple choice between Milliband and Cameron as PM, I agree it's the most likely outcome at the moment, but it is blinkered to pretend it is the only possible outcome.
The promise about the referendum is unequivocal IMO. Cameron + majority = referendum. Of course he can't guarantee it without a majority. Ergo if you really want it then you better try & make sure he has a majority!
Again its kipperish, tinfoil hat wearing nonsense to suggest otherwise. Not even St Nigel is banging that drum, the only drum he's banging is that we should do it sooner (in the full knowledge that that is utterly unrealistic of course).
One of Cameron or Miliband will be in Downing St on May 8th, its that simple.
Wombat3 said:
What other outcomes have anything more than say 1% chance of occurring? Again, you don't seem to want to take the opportunity to even suggest what else is possible....?
The promise about the referendum is unequivocal IMO. Cameron + majority = referendum. Of course he can't guarantee it without a majority. Ergo if you really want it then you better try & make sure he has a majority!
Again its kipperish, tinfoil hat wearing nonsense to suggest otherwise. Not even St Nigel is banging that drum, the only drum he's banging is that we should do it sooner (in the full knowledge that that is utterly unrealistic of course).
One of Cameron or Miliband will be in Downing St on May 8th, its that simple.
Wombat - this is indeed simple stuff. You are saying that Cameron or Milliband will be PM on 8th May. I agree that is the most likely event, but you are factually wrong to say that this is the only possibility. There is no need for the 'kipperish' or 'tinfoil' insults and ridiculous 'StNigel' comments - it is quite childish. The promise about the referendum is unequivocal IMO. Cameron + majority = referendum. Of course he can't guarantee it without a majority. Ergo if you really want it then you better try & make sure he has a majority!
Again its kipperish, tinfoil hat wearing nonsense to suggest otherwise. Not even St Nigel is banging that drum, the only drum he's banging is that we should do it sooner (in the full knowledge that that is utterly unrealistic of course).
One of Cameron or Miliband will be in Downing St on May 8th, its that simple.
The possibilities on election day might vary. Other than Labour postal votes, I don't think the results have been counted yet.
One possibility is that having seen the way things have gone for Nick Clegg with Cameron, the Libs might demand a change of leadership as a coalition.
Another possibility is that having seen the way the Lib Dems have suffered - no one will form a coalition and we end up with a minority government and a Conservative or Labour change of leadership for the next election however soon that is.
UKIP might get enough seats to be influential and Cameron having labelled them swivel eyed loons may step down so that a workable solution is found.
Cameron might be in Downing Street on 8th May having to ask for a new election as Labour/Cons have the same number of seats without a majority.
I'm sure there are lots of other possibilities, some as ridiculous as the PM and the Chancellor meeting in a posh restaurant and deciding when the incapable of winning a GE chancellor steps into his shoes…. sorry that is ridiculous.
I can't say which of these possibilities is over 1% if any - because we don't know the result yet!
If it comes to a coalition with the Tories, only one party have said that they could form a coalition with the Tories, but not whilst Cameron is in charge. And that's UKIP.
So the potential for NOT having a referendum if the Tories form a govt seems to be if they have to have UKIP in a coalition.
Ironic
So the potential for NOT having a referendum if the Tories form a govt seems to be if they have to have UKIP in a coalition.
Ironic
JustAnotherLogin said:
If it comes to a coalition with the Tories, only one party have said that they could form a coalition with the Tories, but not whilst Cameron is in charge. And that's UKIP.
So the potential for NOT having a referendum if the Tories form a govt seems to be if they have to have UKIP in a coalition.
Ironic
On what plannet are you on?So the potential for NOT having a referendum if the Tories form a govt seems to be if they have to have UKIP in a coalition.
Ironic
Scuffers said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
If it comes to a coalition with the Tories, only one party have said that they could form a coalition with the Tories, but not whilst Cameron is in charge. And that's UKIP.
So the potential for NOT having a referendum if the Tories form a govt seems to be if they have to have UKIP in a coalition.
Ironic
On what plannet are you on?So the potential for NOT having a referendum if the Tories form a govt seems to be if they have to have UKIP in a coalition.
Ironic
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff