UK Politics

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.

**BaronIveagh**

reds8n wrote:

Boris Johnson has just told the House of Commons he will support proposals to build a new Royal Yacht Britannia

**Silent Puffin?**

jhe90 wrote:

I'm pretty sure India and china not need our foreign aid.

They don't but then foreign 'aid' isn't really about aid, its about influence.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
jhe90 wrote:

I'm pretty sure India and china not need our foreign aid.

They don't but then foreign 'aid' isn't really about aid, its about influence.

Right, so let's Influence India by deducting a sum equivalent to their space program expenditure from the foreign aid we send them, and sent it to Syria instead.

**Ketara**

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

I read the article. I'm sure he feels very edgy, tapping away about the 'British colonial masters' daring to voice an opinion about where their 'do-gooder British aid' is going, but he seems blind to all basic forms of context. His page says he's writing a history of Modern India; I dread to think of the quality of the piece with analysis of that level. I mean Christ, he directly compares the micro to the macro.

Meanwhile, he shows his complete inability to conceptualise poverty in a single sentence. 'Even a poor, hungry kid could dream for a Math Olympiad, can't she?'

No, Mr Viswanathan. The poor starving kid will be dreaming about where their next meal is coming from. In between dealing with whatever health conditions growing up has caused them, and trying to keep a roof over their heads. They won't be thinking about Math Olympiad's, because their education is unlikely to have been good enough to have even heard of them. But then again, taking care of the lower castes has never been a real concern for those with power, money, and education in India, has it?

I suppose if you shout loudly enough about racism, you might be able to shut up the people who ask instead about all the hungry, ill-educated children being neglected this week. I mean, they're totally ruining your moment to be proud of what you did with all the money you exploited from the lower classes! And that's just not fair, is it? Bloody colonial oppressors! They ruin everything!

**A Town Called Malus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
jhe90 wrote:

I'm pretty sure India and china not need our foreign aid.

They don't but then foreign 'aid' isn't really about aid, its about influence.

Right, so let's Influence India by deducting a sum equivalent to their space program expenditure from the foreign aid we send them, and sent it to Syria instead.

Space exploration programs are very effective government spending programs when it comes to getting returns on your investment in the form of economic growth. They require large numbers of very skilled people from a very wide range of fields, they require skilled labour, computer scientists, aviation experts, chemists, physicists, electrical engineers etc.

Telling India to stop doing things which grow its economy and instead reduce poverty is really dumb. It's ability to reduce poverty will increase as its economy improves.

**welshhoppo**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
jhe90 wrote:

I'm pretty sure India and china not need our foreign aid.

They don't but then foreign 'aid' isn't really about aid, its about influence.

Right, so let's Influence India by deducting a sum equivalent to their space program expenditure from the foreign aid we send them, and sent it to Syria instead.

Space exploration programs are very effective government spending programs when it comes to getting returns on your investment in the form of economic growth. They require large numbers of very skilled people from a very wide range of fields, they require skilled labour, computer scientists, aviation experts, chemists, physicists, electrical engineers etc.

Telling India to stop doing things which grow its economy and instead reduce poverty is really dumb. It's ability to reduce poverty will increase as its economy improves.

He didn't say that. He said that if India can afford to go into space, then they can afford to look after their poor and needy and don't need us doing it for them.

That's like someone buying me food whilst I spend my money on PlayStation games. If I can afford several PlayStation games a month, I can afford to cut back and buy my own food.

**jhe90**

welshhoppo wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
jhe90 wrote:

I'm pretty sure India and china not need our foreign aid.

They don't but then foreign 'aid' isn't really about aid, its about influence.

Right, so let's Influence India by deducting a sum equivalent to their space program expenditure from the foreign aid we send them, and sent it to Syria instead.

Space exploration programs are very effective government spending programs when it comes to getting returns on your investment in the form of economic growth. They require large numbers of very skilled people from a very wide range of fields, they require skilled labour, computer scientists, aviation experts, chemists, physicists, electrical engineers etc.

Telling India to stop doing things which grow its economy and instead reduce poverty is really dumb. It's ability to reduce poverty will increase as its economy improves.

He didn't say that. He said that if India can afford to go into space, then they can afford to look after their poor and needy and don't need us doing it for them.

That's like someone buying me food whilst I spend my money on PlayStation games. If I can afford several PlayStation games a month, I can afford to cut back and buy my own food.

Exactly!
We can use that money to help people who are in a worse position than India.
I doubt in the grand scale India would notice long term.

**Ketara**

Eh. That's not quite what ATCM is saying. Rather, he's asserting that by putting money into a space program, they're investing money into something that will generate more money and societal benefits which can then be used to help the poor.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not space programs actually do that (and it is a question, because if it were that simple every country would have one), it's still not really a very good retort. Why? Because that's like us lending them money to pay their day to day expenses whilst they invest their money in the hope of generating enough at a later date to pay their day to day expenses.

But that's not really our department, I would say, when we're clearly not putting enough money into our own expenses. Our deficit is high, and there are people out there in our own country who /really /really need that money. So I think earmarking it for another country so that they can invest their money instead of spending it is misusing it somewhat.

**Whirlwind**

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.

I think this is being a bit naïve. To develop countries need high tech industries; space is just one of them, so is biotech and so on. By having such industries it allows you to both train and keep the countries talent (rather than saying they move to the EU, US, China and so on). By paying for such industries that then brings money in (e,g. satellite launches) expands the industry and then helps more people become educated and being a resource to their country as well as taxes. These people then spend their money in India which allows other 'lower tech' industries and service businesses to expand. That money feeds through the system slowly but eventually it does and that lifts everyone eventually but it's not an overnight thing. A country without the high tech industries will have less money and more poverty that it cannot get out of and so becomes much more reliant on other countries charity.

As for where we spend the money, even if we stopped the millions to India it is highly unlikely that India will stop their space program because of the above. The real question is that what sort of people do we want to be when we turn our backs on some of the poorest people in the world? Where the money can be the difference between life and death for a child because of dysentery. Yes we could spend the money on homelessness but perhaps we could do both, after all a £30 (on average tax increase) by all the working population would raise the money to support homelessness; or we could reduce defence spending by about 2% to help them.

However I'd note that we are going to get both things. Last weeks budget earmarked an extra (note this bit) £1.2billion reduction in foreign aid by 19/20 and about a £0.8b reduction in local authority funding (compared to the 2016 budget) so both the homeless and the poorest people elsewhere in the world are going to get less support. But then that's the Tory party for you!

Maybe we should encourage all homeless people to set up outside Downing Street?

**Ian Sturrock**

The point about reading the article is that it goes into the economics -- the cost for India's space programme is about the same as what one of its cricket teams is worth, IIRC. It's a pretty small investment for massive societal benefits.

Just like our foreign aid, as well as being necessary if we're going to meet the UN's baseline for not being gits, is a small investment for significant international kudos and influence.

**Mr. Burning**

Ian Sturrock wrote:
The point about reading the article is that it goes into the economics -- the cost for India's space programme is about the same as what one of its cricket teams is worth, IIRC. It's a pretty small investment for massive societal benefits.

Just like our foreign aid, as well as being necessary if we're going to meet the UN's baseline for not being gits, is a small investment for significant international kudos and influence.

To be honest I used to have a Daily Mail attitude to foreign aid but then realised that if anything it was an investment in kindness and generosity.

**Sentinel1**

I think more focus should be put on physical aid rather than hand-outs to foreign states or third-party charities because the money gets diluted into wasted projects and over paid bank accounts. There should be more direct food surplus, medical supplies, fuels, prefabricated construction and vehicles for infrastructure rather than wasting tax payers money by giving it to inefficient governments or narrow thinking charities. Back tracking to India, they are entitled to spend the money on whatever they want, as I see it the space project was 1) to say they are a success/cross off the bucket list, and 2) to develop technology for ballistic missiles that can carry another God-named nuclear bomb.

**reds8n**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
jhe90 wrote:

I'm pretty sure India and china not need our foreign aid.

They don't but then foreign 'aid' isn't really about aid, its about influence.

Right, so let's Influence India by deducting a sum equivalent to their space program expenditure from the foreign aid we send them, and sent it to Syria instead.

and we do this before or after we also approach them for a trade deal to replace all the ones we're losing ?

**BaronIveagh**

reds8n wrote:

and we do this before or after we also approach them for a trade deal to replace all the ones we're losing ?

Well, after would be almost sane, so before, obviously.

**Herzlos**

Sentinel1 wrote:
I think more focus should be put on physical aid rather than hand-outs to foreign states or third-party charities because the money gets diluted into wasted projects and over paid bank accounts. There should be more direct food surplus, medical supplies, fuels, prefabricated construction and vehicles for infrastructure rather than wasting tax payers money by giving it to inefficient governments or narrow thinking charities. Back tracking to India, they are entitled to spend the money on whatever they want, as I see it the space project was 1) to say they are a success/cross off the bucket list, and 2) to develop technology for ballistic missiles that can carry another God-named nuclear bomb.

That only works if you follow it up with consumables and money. I've heard lots of tales of equipment rotting because noone followed up with fuel, electricity costs, x-ray slides and so on.

**obsidianaura**

What are peoples thoughts about TM and denying the 2nd Scottish referendum.

I feel that it is the right thing to do to wait till after Brexit.

Scotland is leaving the EU in any result regardless and also, would it be a fair campaign if one side is busy with EU negotiations?

It seems best to wait and do it after the the dust has settled right?

**tneva82**

May is pushing Scotland toward independence with her interfering with Scotland's referendum's.

More fuel to Scotland to leave the sinking ship that's the UK.

**obsidianaura**

tneva82 wrote:
May is pushing Scotland toward independence with her interfering with Scotland's referendum's.

More fuel to Scotland to leave the sinking ship that's the UK.

I'm fine with Scotland separating if they think its in their own interests but just not now, there's a lot to do right now.

If Scotland ever becomes part of the EU its going to be a headache. Wouldn't we need restricted border between Scotland and England?

I cant imagine that working.

**welshhoppo**

Its not really interfering as she gets the final say, it's like your boss telling you you can't do something.

But yes, wait until Brexit is over. Then if they choose to leave then good luck to them (although I think its a bad idea, its their call)

**jhe90**

wait, even if they voted to leave they do not know what there leaving, what the terms will be or anything.

its all up in the air and not the best foundation for indy ref 2.

**Ketara**

Apparently practically every poll says most Scottish people actually have no interest in a referendum until Brexit is out of the way. Sturgeon is just trying to push the 'puir wee bullied Scotland' line to sow wheat for later reaping.

It's amazing though, how successful such a simple bit of manipulation and posturing can be on some people.

**Silent Puffin?**

jhe90 wrote:
wait, even if they voted to leave they do not know what there leaving, what the terms will be or anything.

The timing is to coincide with the stage of the Brexit negotiations when potential settlement is known and when it is set to be debated within the EU.

That's not really the point of the SNP's announcement on Monday though, there is scant chance of getting a referendum in 2018/19 and to be honest there never really was. The SNP simply want to pressure May and the Torys into doing something rash while at the same time making a solid commitment to their manifesto pledge.

Article 50 has already been delayed, May looks fairly lost and more than a little annoyed yet when she inevitably pushed the referendum back to 2020/21 the SNP would have further evidence to support to claim that Westminster doesn't listen to Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon is reinforcing the point that she is far and away the most astute political leader within the UK.

**Ketara**

Silent Puffin? wrote:

Nicola Sturgeon is reinforcing the point that she is far and away the most astute political leader within the UK.

In all seriousness? I'm not convinced of that. Sitting in the back and lobbing passive-aggressive insults is what Corbyn did up until he became leader. Now he's expected to run an actual opposition, we've learnt that being good at the former doesn't necessarily entail any capability for the latter.

Likewise, it's not very hard to wheel out a 'evil tories/oppressed Scotland' comment every five minutes. Everyone praises the fact that the SNP manage to vote and act as a bloc at the moment, but frankly, that's only looking impressive because the actual opposition is such a shambles. If there was a capable Labour leader making 200 odd seats act as a unified bloc, as indeed there normally has been up until recent times, nobody would give her credit for something like that; being able to get your MP's to vote together is a prerequisite to running a party, not a point of praise or skill.

As evidence, I offer up the recent Lib Dems. Well organised party machine. Held an equivalent number of seats to what the SNP do right now for ages. Spent a very long time delivering very well polished soundbites against whatever government was in power. Performed well in debates.

Then got into power and proved how big the gap is between being good at snarky one liners from the benches, and actually good at running the country.

Accordingly, I think it's far too early to make any judgements about Sturgeon. Everything she does at the moment is the political equivalent of doing it with training wheels on the political bike. No consequences, no responsibility, and no cause for any real dissension in the party.

**Silent Puffin?**

Ketara wrote:

Accordingly, I think it's far too early to make any judgements about Sturgeon. Everything she does at the moment is the political equivalent of doing it with training wheels on the political bike. No consequences, no responsibility, and no cause for any real dissension in the party.

She has been the SNP leader, and the first minster, since late 2014. She is the longest serving leader of any major political party in the UK.

Compared to Corbyn and May she is on another level entirely.

**obsidianaura**

Ketara wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:

Nicola Sturgeon is reinforcing the point that she is far and away the most astute political leader within the UK.

In all seriousness? I'm not convinced of that. Sitting in the back and lobbing passive-aggressive insults is what Corbyn did up until he became leader. Now he's expected to run an actual opposition, we've learnt that being good at the former does necessarily entail any capability for the latter.

Likewise, it's not very hard to wheel out a 'evil tories/oppressed Scotland' comment every five minutes. Everyone praises the fact that the SNP manage to vote and act as a bloc at the moment, but frankly, that's only looking impressive because the actual opposition is such a shambles. If there was a capable Labour leader making 200 odd seats act as a unified bloc, as indeed there normally has been up until recent times, nobody would give her credit for something like that; being able to get your MP's to vote together is a prerequisite to running a party, not a point of praise or skill.

As evidence, I offer up the recent Lib Dems. Well organised party machine. Held an equivalent number of seats to what the SNP do right now for ages. Spent a very long time delivering very well polished soundbites against whatever government was in power. Performed well in debates.

Then got into power and proved how big the gap is between being good at snarky one liners from the benches, and actually good at running the country.

Accordingly, I think it's far too early to make any judgements about Sturgeon. Everything she does at the moment is the political equivalent of doing it with training wheels on the political bike. No consequences, no responsibility, and no cause for any real dissension in the party.

I'm tempted to vote Lib Dem next time round. I think we're starting to see what not having them to balance out the Tories in government looks like.

**Ketara**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Ketara wrote:

Accordingly, I think it's far too early to make any judgements about Sturgeon. Everything she does at the moment is the political equivalent of doing it with training wheels on the political bike. No consequences, no responsibility, and no cause for any real dissension in the party.

She has been the SNP leader, and the first minster, since late 2014. She is the longest serving leader of any major political party in the UK.

Compared to Corbyn and May she is on another level entirely.

Mate, if your qualification for being an amazingly skilled politician is lasting as party leader for two and a half years and an MP for two, your bar really isn't very high.

I suspect if you stuck her in the 'career-killer' post of Home Secretary for five years, you might have a different opinion. I repeat, she's still got the training wheels on.

**reds8n**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39304944

George Osborne to become editor of London Evening Standard

Former Chancellor George Osborne has been appointed editor of the London Evening Standard newspaper.
The Conservative MP will succeed Sarah Sands, who is leaving to become editor of the BBC's Today programme.
The BBC's media editor Amol Rajan said Mr Osborne intended to stay on as MP for Tatton, in Cheshire.
The paper said Mr Osborne, who was sacked as chancellor after Theresa May became prime minister in July, would edit it "four days a week".
The Standard's proprietor, Evgeny Lebedev, said Mr Osborne was "London through and through" and he was confident that the MP was "the right person to build on the fantastic legacy of Sarah Sands".
"I am proud to have an editor of such substance, who reinforces The Standard's standing and influence in London and whose political viewpoint - socially liberal and economically pragmatic - closely matches that of many of our readers," tweeted Mr Lebedev.
'Surprise'
The newspaper said its schedule would enable Mr Osborne to "continue to fulfil his other commitments, including as an MP; giving him the time to vote and contribute in Parliament in the afternoon after the paper has gone to print, and be in his constituency".
Rajan, a former editor of The Independent, which is also owned by Mr Lebedev, said the appointment was a "fantastic coup" for the newspaper but would "take a considerable amount of people by surprise".
He said it would be a "big challenge" for Mr Osborne to persuade his constituents in Cheshire that he could continue representing them.
'Fake news'
Patti Goddard, president of the Tatton Conservative Association, said it fully supported the former chancellor on his "exciting" career move, insisting it would not affect his reputation as a "hard-working" constituency MP.
Mr Osborne has been congratulated by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who said he would be covering the "world's greatest city". But Labour MP Paul Flynn criticised what he said was the "revolving door" between government and the private sector.
He said efforts by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments watchdog to stop former ministers from moving seamlessly into "lucrative" roles in other fields had proved "futile".
But former Tatton MP Martin Bell said his first reaction to the announcement was that it "sounds like fake news to me", suggesting on BBC Radio 5 Live that the politician would have to be "superman" to combine his various roles.
Since leaving frontline politics, the former chancellor has become a visiting fellow at a US university and an adviser to US fund manager BlackRock, for which he is being paid £650,000 for four days work a month.
Mr Osborne, who has been an MP since 2001 and was chancellor for six years will address staff at the newspaper later on Friday. It has a circulation of 850,000 to 900,000 copies a day, having become a free title in 2010.
Mr Osborne had ambitions to be a journalist as a young man. He failed to get a place on The Times' trainee scheme after graduating from Oxford University in 1992 and was briefly a freelance reporter on the Daily Telegraph's diary column.

..... alright for some eh ?

**r_squared**

Ketara wrote:
Everyone praises the fact that the SNP manage to vote and act as a bloc at the moment, but frankly, that's only looking impressive because the actual opposition is such a shambles. If there was a capable Labour leader making 200 odd seats act as a unified bloc, as indeed there normally has been up until recent times, nobody would give her credit for something like that; being able to get your MP's to vote together is a prerequisite to running a party, not a point of praise or skill.

For a brief second, I thought you were talking about TM, until I remembered that what TM is doing is pandering, not leading.

I think you're underestimating NS to be honest, yes opposition is "easier" than actual Govt, as Trump is finding out, but she is fighting the corner of Scotland in the only capacity she has available to her, and she's done it well enough to have her party united behind her, as well as a fair chunk of the population of her country. She is also leading her party to be the defacto, if somewhat ineffective, opposition to the Tories in Britain.

I think she will make a very capable Scottish Prime minister when that time comes.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Did anybody watch May's car crash interview with Peston of all people?

Out of her depth...

May sees herself as the modern iron Lady, but on that showing, they'll have to call her the irony lady

Lecturing Sturgeon on economic uncertainty, no mandate, dividing the nation etc etc

And they say May has no sense of humour

Automatically Appended Next Post:

obsidianaura wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
May is pushing Scotland toward independence with her interfering with Scotland's referendum's.

More fuel to Scotland to leave the sinking ship that's the UK.

I'm fine with Scotland separating if they think its in their own interests but just not now, there's a lot to do right now.

If Scotland ever becomes part of the EU its going to be a headache. Wouldn't we need restricted border between Scotland and England?

I cant imagine that working.

There is no desire to have a hard border between both Irelands, so I see no reason why there would need to be a hard border between Scotland and England.

**Ketara**

r_squared wrote:

I think you're underestimating NS to be honest, yes opposition is "easier" than actual Govt, as Trump is finding out, but she is fighting the corner of Scotland in the only capacity she has available to her, and she's done it well enough to have her party united behind her, as well as a fair chunk of the population of her country. She is also leading her party to be the defacto, if somewhat ineffective, opposition to the Tories in Britain.

I think she will make a very capable Scottish Prime minister when that time comes.

In all seriousness, the SNP playbook is about as simple as it comes. Salmond wrote it, she just follows the recipe.

1. Ask for something slightly unreasonable. Not massively unreasonable, because then you'll look like a tool, but something you're unlikely to get. Then pen several articles about oppression and neglect when you don't get it. If you do get it, pen several articles about how great your party is for getting it.
2. Make a statement in Parliament about how something the government is doing is wrong and evil.
3. Make a public/constituency/Holyrood speech about how you're the only ones representing anyone in Scotland.
4. Complain about something bad that has happened in Scotland. Blame it on the current Government.
5. Discuss something good that has happened in Scotland. Claim all credit.
6. Do a week solid set of media interviews discussing all the above.
7. Repeat every two and a half months.

It's a fairly smooth, if basic formula. It really says virtually nothing about their ability to run a government, or even a decent opposition. Note:- I'm not saying that she would be bad at those things. For all we know, she'd be the greatest PM ever. I'm merely pointing out that she's actually in the easiest position it is possible to be in in mainstream politics, and it is impossible to judge whilst she stays there.