The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

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... )

So we can't fix it all so f*ck trying at all? Let's do community, but not community based on being human beings, rather community based on being a group of human beings who are somehow linked based on arbitary boundaries. I'm 'British' so having been born and bred in Bolton, and educated in Bolton then London, it will be OK for my future taxes to pay for a man born in Bristol, and living in Newastle to have a heart bypass, but not to help a man whose house, electricity and running water supplies have all been decimated by natural disaster in Haiti? Long term issues are a difficult challenge in terms of responsibility and how much we can afford to give to help less well off countries, I think it is fairly clear one-off disasters like Haiti are different, where quick funding and human aid can significantly help.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So we can't fix it all so f*ck trying at all? Let's do community, but not community based on being human beings, rather community based on being a group of human beings who are somehow linked based on arbitary boundaries. I'm 'British' so having been born and bred in Bolton, and educated in Bolton then London, it will be OK for my future taxes to pay for a man born in Bristol, and living in Newastle to have a heart bypass, but not to help a man whose house, electricity and running water supplies have all been decimated by natural disaster in Haiti? Long term issues are a difficult challenge in terms of responsibility and how much we can afford to give to help less well off countries, I think it is fairly clear one-off disasters like Haiti are different, where quick funding and human aid can significantly help.

1. How much money would we have to spend on Haiti now for you to considerate it an illegitimate use of taxpayers' money? Would, say, £1billion be too much? If so, on what basis?

2. How cheap is your talk - do you put your money where your mouth is? Or do you make no personal sacrifices at all to back up your idealism?

[Worthy4England]

So we can't fix it all so f*ck trying at all? Let's do community, but not community based on being human beings, rather community based on being a group of human beings who are somehow linked based on arbitary boundaries. I'm 'British' so having been born and bred in Bolton, and educated in Bolton then London, it will be OK for my future taxes to pay for a man born in Bristol, and living in Newastle to have a heart bypass, but not to help a man whose house, electricity and running water supplies have all been decimated by natural disaster in Haiti? Long term issues are a difficult challenge in terms of responsibility and how much we can afford to give to help less well off countries, I think it is fairly clear one-off disasters like Haiti are different, where quick funding and human aid can significantly help.

1. How much money would we have to spend on Haiti now for you to considerate it an illegitimate use of taxpayers' money? Would, say, £1billion be too much? If so, on what basis?

2. How cheap is your talk - do you put your money where your mouth is? Or do you make no personal sacrifices at all to back up your idealism?

You're sounding like a certain political party's manifesto. Long on hard questions and short on any real answers or substance.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I wonder how the star witness will get on today... should be entertaining, if not particularly edifying.

[as]

So they enter an illegal war, lie about the reasons, and at a toothless tribunal they carry on lying.

What's the point?

Anyone with half a brain cell knows that it's a complete waste of time, nowt will come of it, and the c***s will carry on as normal.

F******g politicians - pah!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I always feel a guilty admiration watching Blair.

Just like Clinton - can't stand either of them, but both have some incredible gifts.

[Lord Kangana]

So they enter an illegal war, lie about the reasons, and at a toothless tribunal they carry on lying.

What's the point?

Anyone with half a brain cell knows that it's a complete waste of time, nowt will come of it, and the c***s will carry on as normal.

F******g politicians - pah!

Apparently we spend £600,000 on security for Blair every year since he's gone. And I wonder how much this sham enquiry is costing us?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Returning briefly to PB's question, I'm not sure that any country has to spend a large amount extra on disaster relief. Foreign aid pays for any number of things and, in a crisis, one could trim back a little on some items that are less time-sensitive or critical. Redirecting some funds could stay within budget. Perhaps delaying action on climate change in Indonesia or waiting a year to send the extra teacher to Bonga Bonga, etc. Just a thought.

[as]

So they enter an illegal war, lie about the reasons, and at a toothless tribunal they carry on lying.

What's the point?

Anyone with half a brain cell knows that it's a complete waste of time, nowt will come of it, and the c***s will carry on as normal.

F******g politicians - pah!

Apparently we spend £600,000 on security for Blair every year since he's gone. And I wonder how much this sham enquiry is costing us?

Amazing.

The country is on it's knees, due to c****y politicians doing a very bad job, and they're still costing us a fortune.

America get Obama in charge, we get the 'option' of a one-eyed jock and a upper-class twit with a humpty-dumpty head.

[Lord Kangana]

We've never had a proper revolution. Maybe nows a good time to start.

[superjohnmcginlay]

So they enter an illegal war, lie about the reasons, and at a toothless tribunal they carry on lying.

What's the point?

Anyone with half a brain cell knows that it's a complete waste of time, nowt will come of it, and the c***s will carry on as normal.

F******g politicians - pah!

Apparently we spend £600,000 on security for Blair every year since he's gone. And I wonder how much this sham enquiry is costing us?

Amazing.

The country is on it's knees, due to c****y politicians doing a very bad job, and they're still costing us a fortune.

America get Obama in charge, we get the 'option' of a one-eyed jock and a upper-class twit with a humpty-dumpty head.

Or you could go for Nick "Shagger" Clegg.

[William the White]

So they enter an illegal war, lie about the reasons, and at a toothless tribunal they carry on lying.

What's the point?

Anyone with half a brain cell knows that it's a complete waste of time, nowt will come of it, and the c***s will carry on as normal.

F******g politicians - pah!

Apparently we spend £600,000 on security for Blair every year since he's gone. And I wonder how much this sham enquiry is costing us?

The only people who get hurt by enquiries are comparatively low paid, and, always, always overworked social workers, whose errors lead to horrible things happening to children. Enquiries do for them all right!

but politicians, most doctors, most lawyers, most soldiers... enquiries tend to show that their shit smells sweeter than roses...

[BWFC_Insane]

So they enter an illegal war, lie about the reasons, and at a toothless tribunal they carry on lying.

What's the point?

Anyone with half a brain cell knows that it's a complete waste of time, nowt will come of it, and the c***s will carry on as normal.

F******g politicians - pah!

Apparently we spend £600,000 on security for Blair every year since he's gone. And I wonder how much this sham enquiry is costing us?

And even were it not a "sham" what could it ever achieve?

Does it make anyone feel any better? I can't imagine so!

[Prufrock]

So we can't fix it all so f*ck trying at all? Let's do community, but not community based on being human beings, rather community based on being a group of human beings who are somehow linked based on arbitary boundaries. I'm 'British' so having been born and bred in Bolton, and educated in Bolton then London, it will be OK for my future taxes to pay for a man born in Bristol, and living in Newastle to have a heart bypass, but not to help a man whose house, electricity and running water supplies have all been decimated by natural disaster in Haiti? Long term issues are a difficult challenge in terms of responsibility and how much we can afford to give to help less well off countries, I think it is fairly clear one-off disasters like Haiti are different, where quick funding and human aid can significantly help.

1. How much money would we have to spend on Haiti now for you to considerate it an illegitimate use of taxpayers' money? Would, say, £1billion be too much? If so, on what basis?

2. How cheap is your talk - do you put your money where your mouth is? Or do you make no personal sacrifices at all to back up your idealism?

It's a tough one to answer, I honestly don't know. I don't think there is 'too much' as such, but obviously billions and billions isn't going to happen. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line financially, or even morally. It's a cop out I know, but I don't think £20million is enough to start making serious dents on anything I would consider more important.

As for two, I've given bits to people collecting and went to a party the other night I wouldn't have done otherwise, probably around £20 altogether. Is it what I can afford? Probably not, I'd like to say I'm a student and I'm poor, but honestly I probably could give more. Does that mean what I do give, or anybody else, governments or private individuals isn't to be recognised as a 'good thing'? I don't think so.

[William the White]

okay... mummy's been getting fairly truculent recently about all these champagne socialists, demanding the info on who we've helped, and how much, or if we've sold houses and stuff...

but, you know, mummy's always telling us - proudly it seems to me - that he bases his politics and approach to life on selfishness... so, let us have the info out of the resident rightist...

so, mummy, who have you been selfish with this week? what charitable act did you refuse? how good did it make you feel? how much money (mmm... money) did you keep to yourself because of it?...

or did you behave decently with a blind, elderly person, (ssshhhh... not even from these isles) despite rushing to catch a bus...

huh.. thought so...

you were a decent human being last tuesday... hypocrite!!!

[Lord Kangana]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... d-Tax.html


I vote yes.

[Worthy4England]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... d-Tax.html


I vote yes.

I could be tempted to vote yes possibly. Problem is, they'll find some way of passing it on to the customer.

So unless we can manage that minor problem, it gets a no. I'd generally rather my tax paying to be explicit rather than implicit.

[CAPSLOCK]

I'm just a simple man

I have a question about taxation...why not do away with income tax and use VAT

[Lord Kangana]

Just to clarify - on everything (including PAYE) or just on goods and services?

[superjohnmcginlay]

I vote no. Purely cos I think Bill Nighy's an annoying tw*t.