The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

I am entertained by Massachusetts' manner of celebrating the anniversary of The Big O's inauguration. Buyer's remorse, anyone?

It took Britain almost 10 years to realise that we were viewing style over substance. The US appear to have done it in one.

Meanwhile, Obama has Hillary Rodham Clinton playing the great balancing act of wanting him to crash & burn, whilst appearing to support him.

Considering the sheer size of Obama's countrywide victory, its a little over the top to claim this as 'US' backtracking

[bobo the clown]

I am entertained by Massachusetts' manner of celebrating the anniversary of The Big O's inauguration. Buyer's remorse, anyone?

It took Britain almost 10 years to realise that we were viewing style over substance. The US appear to have done it in one.

Economic crises tend to have a bad effect on governments whatever their political leaning.

Still, at least we're going to elect someone who is all substance over style come May...

... which will be some improvement over someone with neither substance NOR style !

I was referring to Cameron, and therefore kidding. Note to self: use

I knew that ... just pointing out that Cameron has got at least ONE of the attributes, as opposed to the current unelected one.


Oh ...

[bobo the clown]

I am entertained by Massachusetts' manner of celebrating the anniversary of The Big O's inauguration. Buyer's remorse, anyone?

It took Britain almost 10 years to realise that we were viewing style over substance. The US appear to have done it in one.

Meanwhile, Obama has Hillary Rodham Clinton playing the great balancing act of wanting him to crash & burn, whilst appearing to support him.

Considering the sheer size of Obama's countrywide victory, its a little over the top to claim this as 'US' backtracking

Except this is the equivilant of Salford voting in a Tory.

(Ahhh ... that's the poison-dwarf's constituency isn't it .... maybe no longer such a good example).

[Lord Kangana]

Her of the waving-a-cheque-in the-air-and-completely-missing-the-point?

Trident?

[bobo the clown]

Her of the waving-a-cheque-in the-air-and-completely-missing-the-point?

Trident?

Tes, thyat'll be the girl.

Two problems solved with one action.

Isn't it good when a plan comes together.

[Puskas]

I am entertained by Massachusetts' manner of celebrating the anniversary of The Big O's inauguration. Buyer's remorse, anyone?

It took Britain almost 10 years to realise that we were viewing style over substance. The US appear to have done it in one.

Meanwhile, Obama has Hillary Rodham Clinton playing the great balancing act of wanting him to crash & burn, whilst appearing to support him.

Considering the sheer size of Obama's countrywide victory, its a little over the top to claim this as 'US' backtracking

Except this is the equivilant of Salford voting in a Tory.

(Ahhh ... that's the poison-dwarf's constituency isn't it .... maybe no longer such a good example).

Not quite. For instance, when I was living there (2001/2002), Massachusetts had a Republican Governer (can't remember his name - Paul something? I'm sure google could tell you, if you were really interested).

The idea of the whole state being some sort of liberal hotbed is misleading. Based purely on the fact that they're not as insane as the people in the middle of the country...

[Worthy4England]

Just watched Sicko by Michael Moore.

So I'm a few years out of date, but an excellent view on the US health system. Yes, it's written from a particular "angle", but what sort of society turns people away when they need healthcare? Nothing could ever persuade me it's a decent place to live.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And the champagne socialist dig at LK is weak too, surely you are better than that, maybe claiming back your soul back from the lawyers, only to give it to the advertisers has weakened it, or maybe it's Owen Coyle-esque excitement of Captain Evil mkII (the Mandleson is dead, long live the Cameron) has overcome you?

I am most certainly not.

And is there any form of remunerated work that you don't count as selling one's soul?!

No matter how much I hate to say this. PB, Prufrock is right. When there is an urgent humanitarian need, the big players need to step up. Helping Haiti is the right thing to do - spending tax payers' money on invading Iraq was not - think how much you could have saved there! In a sense we have had this argument before about H1N1 when it would only be a worry if Europeans started dying. We live in a global village and we cannot be Eurocentric, worse anglocentric any more. Great Britain became great by exploiting the third world, but with the greatness (granted it is somewhat diminished), comes great responsibilities. That includes helping out when natural disasters strike those unable to help themselves. No one expected Britain to pour millions in to helping New Orleans after Katrina, but Haiti is clearly a different case.

I quite agree about Iraq - if the argument it is that the war has been/was intended to be beneficial to Iraqis, then that is quite the expensive gift we have generously bestowed on them!

Look, to some extent I am playing devil's (or Hobo's) advocate here, but the stream of replies to him that said he was outrageous, incredible, beyond the pale etc were too much. It is not obvious that British taxes should be sprayed around the world at a time when we are running an eye-watering deficit and it isn't monstrous to say so. There is actually a grown up discussion to be had about when and to what extent it is acceptable for a state to divert its citizens money elsewhere.

Let's put it this way then - exactly how much money would it be acceptable for the UK government to spend on foreign aid? In line with the argument about what is the morally right thing to do, how much more should we be spending - it is clear that our contribution barely scratches the surface of putting the devastation right? I'm interested to hear where others would draw the line.

The next question is why is a sudden, dramatic, newsworthy disaster a more deserving case than the slow, grinding misery, pain and poverty that millions face everyday all over the world? What is our duty to these people who haven't made it onto our TV screens and never will? Is it only when our consciences are pricked by the 24 hour media that we are obliged to make a token gesture as part of the 'international community'?

It's good to know the traditional Tory values of me, me, me and me, that got them kicked out in the 1990's are still alive and well and just waiting to come gushing to the fore after a while in the wilderness...

It's not too late to stop Mr Cameron's trojan horse of horrors being unelashed... and personally, I find the idea of turning the other cheek to fellow humans in need to be right-wing moral bankruptcy at its worst.

How much have you donated to the Haiti relief effort, Ratbert?

I have donated a very small amount, via the option to do so on a couple of eBay sales. Please, put me to shame.


Moralising is cheap... much cheaper than cases of wine from Waitrose, at any rate.

[Lord Kangana]

It probably starts with John chapter 11 verse 35.

Death>short of a bob or two.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Come on LK, give us a figure - how much have you shelled out?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Haiti was a basket case before the earthquake and foreign aid made up 30-40% of its budget.
What is a reasonable amount to give in foreign aid generally? Well, in 2008 the UK gave 0.43% of its Gross National Income which was generous by OECD standards. This compares to France (0.39%), Germany (0.38%), Canada (0.32%) and the US (0.19%). Of course these figures vary from year to year. Basically less than 0.5% and more than 0.33% would seem a reasonable rule of thumb for developed countries.

However, I think we have to separate foreign aid in general from emergency relief. Here there is a desperate humanitarian need and both governments and individuals have to step quickly. I note that McGill Undergraduate Arts Students (who always claim poverty themselves) have raised $20,000 so far for Oxfam Quebec for Haitian relief. All such donations are matched by the federal government. Other groups in the university are collecting for the Canadian Red Cross (though I've not yet seen any figures). Every little helps.

[Lord Kangana]

Come on LK, give us a figure - how much have you shelled out?

What would it matter what I say on a forum to prove a point? This isn't debating society, sometimes you need to start thinking beyond yourself.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Come on LK, give us a figure - how much have you shelled out?

What would it matter what I say on a forum to prove a point? This isn't debating society, sometimes you need to start thinking beyond yourself.

So, 50 pence and a Mars bar then.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Haiti was a basket case before the earthquake and foreign aid made up 30-40% of its budget.
What is a reasonable amount to give in foreign aid generally? Well, in 2008 the UK gave 0.43% of its Gross National Income which was generous by OECD standards. This compares to France (0.39%), Germany (0.38%), Canada (0.32%) and the US (0.19%). Of course these figures vary from year to year. Basically less than 0.5% and more than 0.33% would seem a reasonable rule of thumb for developed countries.

Yes, but what does any of this mean apart from keeping up with the international Joneses?

How do these arguments about all human life being equally valuable, moral duty etc deliver us to a figure of 'somewhere between 0.33% and 0.5% of GNI'?

However, I think we have to separate foreign aid in general from emergency relief. Here there is a desperate humanitarian need and both governments and individuals have to step quickly. I note that McGill Undergraduate Arts Students (who always claim poverty themselves) have raised $20,000 so far for Oxfam Quebec for Haitian relief. All such donations are matched by the federal government. Other groups in the university are collecting for the Canadian Red Cross (though I've not yet seen any figures). Every little helps.

I have gone out of my way to conflate the two, because I am not sure why the case of a child about to die as a result of a recent disaster or emergency is more deserving or desperate than a child who is about to die as the victim of a much longer term state of affairs...?

[Lord Kangana]

Are you in gainful employment by any chance mummy? Or are you still a student?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Are you in gainful employment by any chance mummy? Or are you still a student?

The former.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Bloody lawyers!
The question I was answering, which you posed, was "Let's put it this way then - exactly how much money would it be acceptable for the UK government to spend on foreign aid? ". I gave you the averages of some developed nations had been giving over the last few years. These amounts would clearly be acceptable because they have continued over time with no revolution. This has nothing to do with moral duty which is an entirely different issue.

Further I don't think the issues should be conflated. Haiti's long-term problems require solutions that will take a long time. Poverty, lack of education, a ruined ecology etc. take years to alleviate, let alone resolve. Rapid response to a natural disaster by shipping food, water, clothing and medical supplies to an affected area should be an obligation for all the countries of the world. The fact Haiti is poor is irrelevant. The response should be the same if Bermuda was struck by a tidal wave. When the infrastructure of an area collapses, when food and water supplies are contaminated, when people are made homeless, a rapid response is required IMHO, even from countries whose economies are in a mess (which is probably every country in the last couple of years).

[William the White]

Come on LK, give us a figure - how much have you shelled out?

What would it matter what I say on a forum to prove a point? This isn't debating society, sometimes you need to start thinking beyond yourself.

The old slogan always was - be realistic, demand the impossible...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Come on LK, give us a figure - how much have you shelled out?

What would it matter what I say on a forum to prove a point? This isn't debating society, sometimes you need to start thinking beyond yourself.

The old slogan always was - be realistic, demand the impossible...

I don't want to be obstructive, but you're going to have to explain that one to me, William, because it sounds suspiciously like vacuous nonsense at first glance.

LK, I don't know what you're getting at - if we don't debate things on here then what do we do? My suggestion was just that 'thinking' beyond oneself comes pretty cheaply if there's no 'doing' involved.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Bloody lawyers!
The question I was answering, which you posed, was "Let's put it this way then - exactly how much money would it be acceptable for the UK government to spend on foreign aid? ". I gave you the averages of some developed nations had been giving over the last few years. These amounts would clearly be acceptable because they have continued over time with no revolution. This has nothing to do with moral duty which is an entirely different issue.

My question was really aimed at the British taxpayers on here who support our spending on aid, though I am grateful for the context you have provided, which is more or less what I imagined it was.

What I meant was, if our current level of aid spending is so obviously acceptable, at what point would we spending too much (given the fact that we could spend our entire GNI and not address all the poverty in the world), in their view, and why?

I really meant this from a purely British point of view, ignoring what other countries may or may not do. (As you might expect... )