Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We don't vote for prime ministers, this isn't like the presidential election. Complaints about May being unelected are nonsense, just as they were for Brown. No one but Theresa May's constituents voted for her, the rest voted for their local MP to form a government. While Blair liked a presidential style leadership, that isn't how how our system works, but people seem to now have it in their heads that it does and that we are voting for the PM when we vote for our local MP. Non argument, let's move on.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
We don't vote for prime ministers, this isn't like the presidential election. Complaints about May being unelected are nonsense, just as they were for Brown. No one but Theresa May's constituents voted for her, the rest voted for their local MP to form a government. While Blair liked a presidential style leadership, that isn't how how our system works, but people seem to now have it in their heads that it does and that we are voting for the PM when we vote for our local MP. Non argument, let's move on.

Well, many people do base their vote on which party leader they like best rather than their local MPs.

Still makes no difference, that's not how the system works. People talk like May and Brown cheated their way in 'unelected' and it's completely unfair and mistaken.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Well, many people do base their vote on which party leader they like best rather than their local MPs.

I don;t even know who the local MP is, or even which party they represent.

Apparently it's Labour.

This almost snuck under the radar. Relating to the election spending scandal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39284989

Twelve police forces have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider charges over general election expenses.
The CPS said it had received files from 11 forces, and a 12th, Staffordshire Police, confirmed to the BBC it too had sent one.
The files are for the CPS to decide whether charges should be brought.
It comes after complaints about the way Conservative "battle bus" visits to constituencies had been recorded in campaign spending returns.
The allegations came to light following an investigation by Channel 4 News.
The CPS confirmed files had been received from:
Avon and Somerset
Cumbria
Derbyshire
Devon and Cornwall
Gloucestershire
Greater Manchester
Lincolnshire
Metropolitan
Northamptonshire
Nottinghamshire
West Yorkshire
On Monday, it was revealed that Craig Mackinlay, the MP for South Thanet in Kent, had been interviewed under caution over his election expenses.
Kent Police is not one of the forces to have sent a file to the CPS.
A second Conservative MP, Will Quince, who represents Colchester, said he had been told by Essex Police he faced no further action after voluntarily attending an interview under caution last January.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Quince welcomed the decision by the police but said the complaint against him had been "vexatious and politically motivated".

Looks like the wait is on to see what the CPS decide.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
This almost snuck under the radar. Relating to the election spending scandal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39284989

Twelve police forces have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider charges over general election expenses.
The CPS said it had received files from 11 forces, and a 12th, Staffordshire Police, confirmed to the BBC it too had sent one.
The files are for the CPS to decide whether charges should be brought.
It comes after complaints about the way Conservative "battle bus" visits to constituencies had been recorded in campaign spending returns.
The allegations came to light following an investigation by Channel 4 News.
The CPS confirmed files had been received from:
Avon and Somerset
Cumbria
Derbyshire
Devon and Cornwall
Gloucestershire
Greater Manchester
Lincolnshire
Metropolitan
Northamptonshire
Nottinghamshire
West Yorkshire
On Monday, it was revealed that Craig Mackinlay, the MP for South Thanet in Kent, had been interviewed under caution over his election expenses.
Kent Police is not one of the forces to have sent a file to the CPS.
A second Conservative MP, Will Quince, who represents Colchester, said he had been told by Essex Police he faced no further action after voluntarily attending an interview under caution last January.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Quince welcomed the decision by the police but said the complaint against him had been "vexatious and politically motivated".

Looks like the wait is on to see what the CPS decide.

Given situation in sure CPS will have to be rather carefil to make sure they leave no opening for claims of political bias or such.

yeah, its tricky for them. The public interest angle is covered just depends on how straight forward the charges are to prove or try to prove.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
yeah, its tricky for them. The public interest angle is covered just depends on how straight forward the charges are to prove or try to prove.

And the degree of the breach, the amounts and the situation in the constituency's.
If it was close run seat or a seat that was a close run contest.

Id not want to be the one deciding this one.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
/\ That.

I'm a Scot, but I don't live there, and haven't since I was 11 years old.

But Scotland has a very different political demograph to Sarf East Engerlund - anyone can see that. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Scotland also has a very different business portfolio - lots of high end Tourism (look up Shooting Holidays. JEEBUS!), good chunk of Bluechip, Oil (when it's worth something) etc. Westminster isn't geared toward looking after that sort of economy - as DINLT said, that's not England's fault for being the bigger partner.

But to be dragged out of the EU by England, when a far larger majority of Scots want to remain? To be tied to insane Westminster cost cutting at the risk of the economy? No ta.

TBH this is I think rather ridiculous. South-east England contains the City of London, the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London, plus some good quality lesser institutions like Reading, about 75% of the UK's software, chip design and pharmaceutical industries, 90% of the design, fashion, graphics, advertising, TV and film, etc, etc, plus a very significant chunk of tourism. (Ever heard of London, guys?) A whole load of import-export business (Harwich, Dover, Folkestone) and blah blah blah.

All this may be unfair but it's still true. Simply by virtue of weight of population and infrastructure, south-east UK contributes a massive amount to the UK economy as a whole. It's also a deeply conflicted area with some of the richest and the poorest boroughs cheek-by-jowl.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was at the London Book Fair today. The UK publishing industry has identified Brexit as a disaster that is already happening before it's even been officially announced.

Tories fined £70,000 by the electoral commission and many more MPs could be investigated. At last, the light of the law is being shone on this nest of vipers.

The Tories are on the ropes, just waiting for a swift, hard kick to the rear, and what happens? Corbyn fluffs it again!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
/\ That.

I'm a Scot, but I don't live there, and haven't since I was 11 years old.

But Scotland has a very different political demograph to Sarf East Engerlund - anyone can see that. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Scotland also has a very different business portfolio - lots of high end Tourism (look up Shooting Holidays. JEEBUS!), good chunk of Bluechip, Oil (when it's worth something) etc. Westminster isn't geared toward looking after that sort of economy - as DINLT said, that's not England's fault for being the bigger partner.

But to be dragged out of the EU by England, when a far larger majority of Scots want to remain? To be tied to insane Westminster cost cutting at the risk of the economy? No ta.

TBH this is I think rather ridiculous. South-east England contains the City of London, the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London, plus some good quality lesser institutions like Reading, about 75% of the UK's software, chip design and pharmaceutical industries, 90% of the design, fashion, graphics, advertising, TV and film, etc, etc, plus a very significant chunk of tourism. (Ever heard of London, guys?) A whole load of import-export business (Harwich, Dover, Folkestone) and blah blah blah.

All this may be unfair but it's still true. Simply by virtue of weight of population and infrastructure, south-east UK contributes a massive amount to the UK economy as a whole. It's also a deeply conflicted area with some of the richest and the poorest boroughs cheek-by-jowl.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was at the London Book Fair today. The UK publishing industry has identified Brexit as a disaster that is already happening before it's even been officially announced.

I did say it's not England's fault that it's a larger slice of the populace - shame Westminster only looks after London and the Home Counties though.

London Tourism isn't the same as Scotland's Tourism. Yes, Scotland has cities, and Edinburgh (place of my birth) is easily the jewel in that crown - but Scotland also has many other tourist locales, from Lochs to Golf Courses to untamed wilderness.

Whether England grasps it or not, there is a feeling in Scotland that it's an begrudged afterthought.

Of course, if May decides to block a second referendum, she'll have the following interesting situation on her hands...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Tories fined £70,000 by the electoral commission and many more MPs could be investigated. At last, the light of the law is being shone on this nest of vipers.

The Tories are on the ropes, just waiting for a swift, hard kick to the rear, and what happens? Corbyn fluffs it again!

If you where hoping for a good opposition..
Yeah your fresh out of luck. He ain't the leader to get labour anywhere bar less seats at next election.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Tories fined £70,000 by the electoral commission and many more MPs could be investigated. At last, the light of the law is being shone on this nest of vipers.

Yeah, I saw that. Considering it came up in thread here a week or two again, it was encouraging to see it get a proper resolution. Boosts a spot of faith in the process, you know? Teach the Tory party structure a lesson or two about trying to slip some extra campaigning in on the sly.

With regards to Hammond's more recent U-Turn, it was the first serious crack I've seen with the big 3 (Davis, May & Hammond). He was forced to eat humble pie, and he won't have enjoyed it. The question will be whether or not it was May that overrode him, or the full cabinet. If it was the latter, it's no big deal, if it was the former, that could cause problems later.

Stupid thing is, I would wager actual money that the reason it happened was that none of them probably remembered what was even in the manifesto. It was written by Dave & Co three years ago now, and most of those currently in Cabinet probably had nothing to do with drafting it. Not that that's an excuse, if it's in your manifesto you should follow it. I just reckon there was a moment where someone pointed it out them and they went, 'Ah........gak'.

The Labour response has been awful though. Instead of boasting something encouraging and empowering like 'See how we can make the Government change their course of action/how we influence policy to ensure appropriate process is followed', we just got some squawking about the perfidious Tories and how much they hate the common man.

I think that's their problem in a nutshell, actually. They're obsessed with trying to drag down, to insult, to denigrate. They don't know how to build, encourage, and inspire.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Tories fined £70,000 by the electoral commission and many more MPs could be investigated. At last, the light of the law is being shone on this nest of vipers.

Yeah, I saw that. Considering it came up in thread here a week or two again, it was encouraging to see it get a proper resolution. Boosts a spot of faith in the process, you know? Teach the Tory party structure a lesson or two about trying to slip some extra campaigning in on the sly.

With regards to Hammond's more recent U-Turn, it was the first serious crack I've seen with the big 3 (Davis, May & Hammond). He was forced to eat humble pie, and he won't have enjoyed it. The question will be whether or not it was May that overrode him, or the full cabinet. If it was the latter, it's no big deal, if it was the former, that could cause problems later.

Stupid thing is, I would wager actual money that the reason it happened was that none of them probably remembered what was even in the manifesto. It was written by Dave & Co three years ago now, and most of those currently in Cabinet probably had nothing to do with drafting it. Not that that's an excuse, if it's in your manifesto you should follow it. I just reckon there was a moment where someone pointed it out them and they went, 'Ah........gak'.

The Labour response has been awful though. Instead of boasting something encouraging and empowering like 'See how we can make the Government change their course of action/how we influence policy to ensure appropriate process is followed', we just got some squawking about the perfidious Tories and how much they hate the common man.

I think that's their problem in a nutshell, actually. They're obsessed with trying to drag down, to insult, to denigrate. They don't know how to build, encourage, and inspire.

The result of this may be that some of those seats need a new election. Normally, for any government, that would be a big problem, but when the opposition is as feeble as Corbyn, I doubt if the Tories will be losing sleep over it.

As for your second point, I think it's weak leadership from May. I presume she would have known what would be in the budget before the launch day, so presumably, she gave it the green light. For May to backtrack now looks weak, and worse of all, she should have backed her man on this.

Thatcher, for all her faults, would have backed her chancellor come hell or high water.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Tories fined £70,000 by the electoral commission and many more MPs could be investigated. At last, the light of the law is being shone on this nest of vipers.

The Tories are on the ropes, just waiting for a swift, hard kick to the rear, and what happens? Corbyn fluffs it again!

If you where hoping for a good opposition..
Yeah your fresh out of luck. He ain't the leader to get labour anywhere bar less seats at next election.

In their hearts, I think a lot of Corbyn supporters know this, but are resigned to the fact that they are stuck with him until 2020 and the inevitable annihilation at the GE.

Aye corbyn is leading them to walk off a cliff.

And queen has signed article 50 bill into law.
So its now set and stuck as UK law.

Fresh point for discussion. Homelessness.

Homelessness in the capital has been on the rise for a while now. And that's not purely down to the gangs of petty Romanian thieves/beggars that change park every week. There are many British people with mental problems, drug issues, and nowhere to safely lay their heads all over the streets of London.

And yet, we ringfence international aid money out to things like girl pop bands in Africa. I'm aware that there are many worthy causes also receiving that international aid funding, but in all seriousness, why the hell are we sloshing money out to other countries when we have real poverty on our own streets?

I saw a poor bloke across from Waterloo station the other day. Not begging. Just curled up in his sleeping bag, trying to get some kip. He got hassled by some council lads, big blokes dressed like paramilitary troops, who wanted him to move on somewhere he wouldn't upset the tourists. He wasn't even particularly in the public eye (he was under a bridge arch off to the side), but they wouldn't leave him alone. He wasn't causing any trouble.

It sticks in my craw like nothing else that people like him exist half a mile from May's front door, and nothing is done about it. It makes me genuinely angry in a way that nothing else does. I used to work in a hotel in Kingston, and helped out a number of homeless people with regards to getting a wash and a cup of tea when the manager wasn't in. Why? Because there was nowhere for them. Nowhere. Huge bloody rich town, with about sixty homeless people, and only a single shelter for eight people with draconian rules was available.

Something needs to be done. I tried to find a local charity to help out with, but there was nothing around there. No soup kitchens, no bunks, no showers. It galled me that my cup of tea and quick shower was all these people could get, and even that had to be done without company sanction (it would likely have cost me my job if I'd been caught). Now I've moved on, they don't even have that.

It's truly disgusting.

 Ketara wrote:
Fresh point for discussion. Homelessness.

Homelessness in the capital has been on the rise for a while now. And that's not purely down to the gangs of petty Romanian thieves/beggars that change park every week. There are many British people with mental problems, drug issues, and nowhere to safely lay their heads all over the streets of London.

And yet, we ringfence international aid money out to things like girl pop bands in Africa. I'm aware that there are many worthy causes also receiving that international aid funding, but in all seriousness, why the hell are we sloshing money out to other countries when we have real poverty on our own streets?

I saw a poor bloke across from Waterloo station the other day. Not begging. Just curled up in his sleeping bag, trying to get some kip. He got hassled by some council lads, big blokes dressed like paramilitary troops, who wanted him to move on somewhere he wouldn't upset the tourists. He wasn't even particularly in the public eye (he was under a bridge arch off to the side), but they wouldn't leave him alone. He wasn't causing any trouble.

It sticks in my craw like nothing else that people like him exist half a mile from May's front door, and nothing is done about it. It makes me genuinely angry in a way that nothing else does. I used to work in a hotel in Kingston, and helped out a number of homeless people with regards to getting a wash and a cup of tea when the manager wasn't in. Why? Because there was nowhere for them. Nowhere. Huge bloody rich town, with about sixty homeless people, and only a single shelter for eight people with draconian rules was available.

Something needs to be done. I tried to find a local charity to help out with, but there was nothing around there. No soup kitchens, no bunks, no showers. It galled me that my cup of tea and quick shower was all these people could get, and even that had to be done without company sanction (it would likely have cost me my job if I'd been caught). Now I've moved on, they don't even have that.

It's truly disgusting.

Least they got a warm cup of tea, out the cold for a time and chance to shower.
It's a small thing but important.

Aye, we have billions in that budget. And it goes to nations with space programmes....
That's stupid. We have alot of causes in uk that could do alot of good with that money.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/13/home_office_warns_staff_not_to_tweet_negative_trump_posts/?mt=1489665678819

UK Home Office warns tech staff not to tweet negative Donald Trump posts
'We need to be careful here'

Exclusive The UK Home Office is warning staff and contractors not to tweet or retweet negative posts about Donald Trump, in an email about its social media guidance seen by The Register.

In a missive to the department's Digital, Data and Technology unit last week, it told staff "a quick look through just a couple of known personal twitter accounts of DDaT staff members shows that some are not compliant."

Accounts are "stating that they work for the Home Office, posting HO work, whilst tweeting or retweeting negative posts about, for example, [US President] Donald Trump," it said.

"We need to be careful here and ensure all our staff are following this guidance which reflects the Civil Service Code," it added.

The US Department of Homeland Security is currently using software to scan social media accounts of people visiting the United States (with a low "match confidence" tool, as it transpired). This is just one of Donald Trump's “extreme vetting” methods in order to try and prevent possible terrorists from entering. The software appears to be encountering problems.

The email from the Home Office reminded staff that the Department's Social Media Guidance has been updated.

It said key things to be aware of regarding the guidance is that it applies to all staff including contractors and temporary staff; that staff should not say that they work for the Home Office on Personal accounts; and that they should avoid commenting on politically controversial issues; commenting on the official government position; or giving personal opinions about the organisation.

However, some have commented that the reminder reflects an increasingly draconian and closed social media policy - following the more open attitude encouraged by the likes of the Government Digital Service.

..hmm.


I don't have any issue with official Govt./related accounts being told to be careful, but I think we're on dangerous ground when we come to restricting what people can/can't do on their personal accounts --- there's already the usual caveats about bring disrepute etc etc so you will, perhaps, reap what you sow,

It smacks a bit too much to me like :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/01/firms-bidding-for-government-contracts-asked-if-they-back-brexit

Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”

The requirement to back the best deal for Britain is one of a list of criteria applicants for the two DIT contracts are asked to fulfil, alongside being “focused enough to stick to the task at hand”, “committed and hard-working” and “enthused by the prospect of working at the frontline in such an exciting and dynamic area”.

In total, these “cultural fit” criteria will be given a 15% weighting in assessing which company to pick, the ads say.

Given the international nature of so many companies this is really rather pointless...

-- unless of course you planned on using this to throw business to, say, a new start up -- perhaps ran by a party donor personal friend...errr loyal and hard working patriot or whatever --- and need a little bit of leeway to justify why the contract was awarded to company Xx instead of YY it seems somewhat ..superfluous ?

 Ketara wrote:

And yet, we ringfence international aid money out to things like girl pop bands in Africa. I'm aware that there are many worthy causes also receiving that international aid funding, but in all seriousness, why the hell are we sloshing money out to other countries when we have real poverty on our own streets?

Your assuming that rough sleeping (which does not represent all homelessness, not even a large percentage of it) is a poverty issue. It's not. There are options. Shelters, housing available etc. It is normally because those peoples lives are so chaotic, with mental health, addiction and other social problems that they struggle to access or remain in these support networks. There is an issue with poverty, and poverty can be the trigger for these issues, but it is not the cause of rough sleeping generally. Although better mental health provision would make a huge difference.

 Steve steveson wrote:
There are options. Shelters, housing available etc.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. The truth is that in some places there are options. In Kingston-upon-Thames, there's a single shelter which has capacity for a bare fraction of the number of people who need it, and which has draconian rules (you have to be in by about 5pm and not leave the building to get a place). The local church also lets homeless people snooze there during the coldest winter months.

That's it. And I doubt that Kingston is some amazing anomaly, when you consider how rich that area and their local council are.

Saying 'there are options' does not make them appear. Some places have them, sure. In others? They're non-existent or have nowhere near the capacity required.

Often, homeless people develop drug problems whilst out on the street as a way of escaping the rotten hell their life has become. But all the drugs and mental problems mean diddly squat with regards to access if the options to access housing and wash facilities simply aren't there.Local authority provisions for homelessness have been cut by 45% since 2009.

There are thousands of good people sleeping on the streets. And we do nothing about it.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

And yet, we ringfence international aid money out to things like girl pop bands in Africa. I'm aware that there are many worthy causes also receiving that international aid funding, but in all seriousness, why the hell are we sloshing money out to other countries when we have real poverty on our own streets?

Your assuming that rough sleeping (which does not represent all homelessness, not even a large percentage of it) is a poverty issue. It's not. There are options. Shelters, housing available etc. It is normally because those peoples lives are so chaotic, with mental health, addiction and other social problems that they struggle to access or remain in these support networks. There is an issue with poverty, and poverty can be the trigger for these issues, but it is not the cause of rough sleeping generally. Although better mental health provision would make a huge difference.

I agree with Ketara, there are no real options once you are on the street. And once you get caught in that cycle, there is a good chance you won't get out.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

And yet, we ringfence international aid money out to things like girl pop bands in Africa. I'm aware that there are many worthy causes also receiving that international aid funding, but in all seriousness, why the hell are we sloshing money out to other countries when we have real poverty on our own streets?

Your assuming that rough sleeping (which does not represent all homelessness, not even a large percentage of it) is a poverty issue. It's not. There are options. Shelters, housing available etc. It is normally because those peoples lives are so chaotic, with mental health, addiction and other social problems that they struggle to access or remain in these support networks. There is an issue with poverty, and poverty can be the trigger for these issues, but it is not the cause of rough sleeping generally. Although better mental health provision would make a huge difference.

Ok so uk budgets for foreign aid is 12.2 billion pounds.

Now even if we took 10%, 1.2 billion pounds we could fund a large national anti homelessness drive to create shelters, opertunoties and offer ways off thr street. Now granted not all want help. But for those who do that money could give alot of people down on there luck a second chance.

Hell, even some of the people who staff it could be former homeless, they would understand and give them jobs, incomes and a chance inside a orgonisation that supports them, those who are sleeping rough and such.

Even of we say only could help 35-50% that would be a huge thing to help uk citizens.

I think the foreign aid thing is a red herring. We have a moral obligation to help those in extreme poverty, and there's a pragmatic side too -- by helping developing world countries, we increase global stability and reduce the risk of wars, famines, etc. all of which benefits everyone (and probably, for those who care about such things, our foreign aid also reduces migration to the UK, as a side effect).

That's not to say we shouldn't also tackle poverty and homelessness in the UK, mind. I just don't think we need to start making comparisons between that and foreign aid.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I think the foreign aid thing is a red herring. We have a moral obligation to help those in extreme poverty, and there's a pragmatic side too -- by helping developing world countries, we increase global stability and reduce the risk of wars, famines, etc. all of which benefits everyone (and probably, for those who care about such things, our foreign aid also reduces migration to the UK, as a side effect).

That's not to say we shouldn't also tackle poverty and homelessness in the UK, mind. I just don't think we need to start making comparisons between that and foreign aid.

Yet we still have countries like India on the list.
And they have a small space programme. They get 150 million.

We still have some money going to China of all countries.
They don,t need a penny.

We should tighten up our criteria.

I guess by that "logic" the UK should cut all research funding till we've dealt with our own people in poverty...

https://balajiviswanathan.quora.com/Indian-Space-Mission-Poverty-and-Closet-Racism?srid=vbF&share=1

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I guess by that "logic" the UK should cut all research funding till we've dealt with our own people in poverty...

https://balajiviswanathan.quora.com/Indian-Space-Mission-Poverty-and-Closet-Racism?srid=vbF&share=1

False comparison. The UK does not receive millions In foreign aid to alleviate poverty in the UK whilst simultaneously splashing out on a space program.

Our foreign aid effectively subsidises India's space program. We look after their poor people so they don't have to. If India was receiving nothing in foreign aid from the UK, then I would not begrudge them their space program, in fact I would wish them every success.


There is nothing racist in protesting when you subsidise another person's/country's essential expenditures (household bills/poverty aid) at the same time that they are spending on luxuries (hobbies/space program).

Did you read the article? That's really not how it works.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Did you read the article? That's really not how it works.

I did and I still don't see the relevance or how it proves your opinion. The author seems to think a Space program is a right, not a privilege to be earned.

We are giving India our money to help tackle poverty.
India is spendings it's own Money on a space program.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up, or try deflecting criticism with the racism card, you are still receiving somebody else's money to help pay for your essential expenditures whilst spending your own money on luxuries.

We

launched a peace project - not a bomb. We didn't go around fighting a poor country citing the presence of fake WMD. We didn't build a vessel to conquer unsuspecting thirdworlders. We launched a mission to help humanity and the advancement of science. More importantly, we launched it with our money. We didn't ask for your money nor help. Who are you to patronize us this way.

If they can afford to run a space program with their "own money" without Britain, then surely they must also be able to afford to tackle poverty with their own money too.

And then there's a healthy dose of whataboutism. Not sure what Iraq has to do with Foreign Aid and Space Programs.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Did you read the article? That's really not how it works.

I did and I still don't see the relevance or how it proves your opinion. The author seems to think a Space program is a right, not a privilege to be earned.

We are giving India our money to help tackle poverty.
India is spendings it's own Money on a space program.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up, or try deflecting criticism with the racism card, you are still receiving somebody else's money to help pay for your essential expenditures whilst spending your own money on luxuries.

We

launched a peace project - not a bomb. We didn't go around fighting a poor country citing the presence of fake WMD. We didn't build a vessel to conquer unsuspecting thirdworlders. We launched a mission to help humanity and the advancement of science. More importantly, we launched it with our money. We didn't ask for your money nor help. Who are you to patronize us this way.

If they can afford to run a space program with their "own money" without Britain, then surely they must also be able to afford to tackle poverty with their own money too.

And then there's a healthy dose of whataboutism. Not sure what Iraq has to do with Foreign Aid and Space Programs.

I'm pretty sure India and china not need our foreign aid.
They can lose a few million.

There are countries struggling to maintain basic public services etc who could probably do with the help more.
And I know India has issues but there a huge economy. I think they can afford to look after own people.

In reference to your previous post...

moral obligation

In other words, do it because it makes us feel good. I do agree, it is morally good to help alleviate poverty. But that does not mean it it is money well spent. Especially when the recipient boats of being able to afford a space program without help, whilst simultaneously expecting foreign aid to help alleviate poverty.

helping developing countries to increase stability and reduce risk of war

This I also agree with. But I think the money we send to India could be better spent elsewhere, seeing as they can afford their own space program now. Clearly they no longer need our foreign aid, or at least need less of it than before.

I propose we deduct the cost of India's space program from the foreign aid we send them (not cut the aid altogether - deductinf the cost will serve as a warning) and divert it to Syria and the surrounding area to help alleviate the refugee crisis. Such as funding better standards of care in refugee camps, and setting up a system of centres in Turkey Cyprus and Greece to process asylum seekers and identifying genuine refugees from economic migrants, so we can fast track the genuine refugees.


This ticks all your boxes. Were still fulfilling a moral obligation to help others, we're just sending more to Syria and less to India.
Its pragmatic, wed be helping to stabilise Syria or at least treat the symptoms of the war.
And we'd be positively identifying genuine war refugees, putting up a roadblock to economic migration and preventing people making the da gerous and often fatal journey across the Mediterranean.