Cameron is starting to **** me off now

[Mao Cap]

Excellent work by our socialist brothers in the Tory Party.

 

And the Liberal Elite goes marching ON ON ON

[Saintandy666]

nothing to do with the libdems...the u-turning on the NHS, the apparently softly approach on crime, giving large chunks of cash we dont have away...

 

they are desperate to be seen as strong and they are showing they have a bit of say in Govt...maybe their supporters will now shut the fuk up

 

Don't make me laugh. The NHS bill is effectively the same with words changed. There are a few changes, but the core ideas remain.

[Thedelldays]

Don't make me laugh. The NHS bill is effectively the same with words changed. There are a few changes, but the core ideas remain.

 

bed wetter

[Sour Mash]

Politically I am probably to the right of centre, but I actually agree with this policy in principle. However, what frustrates me is the apparent lack of control and efficiency with which this money is used for. As I say I agree with this policy, but not if we have to keep pouring it down a bottomless pit year after year. My other gripe is that Great Britain really doesn't get the credit it deserves for bending over backwards and making an effort for those less fortunate. From our acceptance of refugess over many hundreds of years, through to things like Live Aid and current regular large-scale fund raising we see every year, I don't think there is another country in the world that can compare to the amount we've given over the years.

[Saintandy666]

bed wetter

 

You are a very sad man, resorting to insults like this.

[Seaford Saint]

Cameron pledges ANOTHER £814m towards vaccinating the world's poorest children (on top of £2bn we are already going to donate)

 

As well as being more than five times the £274million pledged by the U.S., it is more than 30 times higher than Germany’s £44million and almost 50 times the £30million given by Spain. Japan gave just £5.5million, while China gave nothing.

 

Raj Shah, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said America could not afford to give more because it was facing a ‘very difficult budget environment’.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002898/David-Cameron-pledges-814m-vaccinating-worlds-poorest-children.html

 

I think it's a disgrace that we are giving money to other countries when we are up to our eyeballs in debt and having to stomach huge budget cuts and tax rises.

 

Cameron is making a huge political error here.

 

If Cameron comes in my pub spouting off about helping foreigners when no other country does I am going to say oi you, Cameron NOooooo...you don't go givin' our money away, spending it on others.

[CB Saint]

Yeah, I mean we might actually save more lives here. FFS, what is this world coming to?

 

I don't have any issue with the concept of foreign aid. I am just surprised that the UK have contributed such a vast amount more than other nations. that is all.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

too quick to stamp your feet eh..?

 

I never stamped my feet dulldays, do keep up. I'm not a liberal voter, I'm a Labour/Green voter - anything that drives their support to ours can only benefit these parties.

[hypochondriac]

I don't vote for a singular party. I look at the relative merits of a party at election time and take into account things like their performance since the last election. I find it odd that someone proclaims themselves as n affiliate of a certain party.

[Jonnyboy]

This is a tough one because I am all up for giving aid to 3rd world aid and think we should give a lot lot more.

 

BUT, it really p!sses me off how other countries do so little. Richer countries than us are gaining an unfair competitive advantage and basically sitting back and doing naff all to help the World's poorest. It's the same when some middle eastern sh!t hole needs military intervention, we are always the mugs that do the dirty work.

 

This country needs a MAJOR change in attitude. We are not a colonial power any more, we are just a small skint island off the coast of Northern Europe. Other countries problems are nothing at all to do with us.

 

Despite our large credit card bill we are still one of the richest countries in the world.

[ecuk268]

Large amounts of foreign aid are for political influence, hence India & Pakistan.

[Special K]

Very true. Have a look at the holiday thread! Despite the "recession", the majority can still eat, have an education go to the doctors and head away somewhere in the summer. We don't have a clue what poverty is.

 

Well that's good news that child poverty in the UK is not a problem anymore. I think it is you who doesn't have a clue what poverty is.

[saint1977]

I don't vote for a singular party. I look at the relative merits of a party at election time and take into account things like their performance since the last election. I find it odd that someone proclaims themselves as n affiliate of a certain party.

 

Ditto. My views are either on the left of the Tory Party, the right of Labour -which probably makes me a Lib Dem. I've actually been pleased with some of Cameron's recent actions - I'm glad he's taking pause for thought on Lansley's loony NHS plans. Why do we always see politicians responding to feedback as weak leadership? Surely it's good leadership - Thatcher screwed up big time after 1987 and wouldn't even listen to her own party or cabinet on the Poll Tax or Care in the Community and look how it crippled the Major administrations that followed. If Cameron now sacks Fox, May and Gove in the next re-shuffle I'd be even happier, get some more One Nation Tories in cabinet posts. Don't know the Mail and the other right wing tabloids can't face the facts - we need a new type of conservatism and capitalism, free market economics is as discredited and dead as Marxism was in 1990. To maintain a proper free market, you actually need a lot of artificial intervention. If Cameron can see this, good on him. Miliband certainly doesn't seem to have any answers. Perhaps people will give the Lib Dems some credit. If the Neo Cons in the Tory party don't like it, join UKIP.

[LGTL]

Well that's good news that child poverty in the UK is not a problem anymore. I think it is you who doesn't have a clue what poverty is.

 

Please enlighten me...

 

As has already been established, child poverty in the UK is poverty in relation to UK living standards, and is terrible in its own right. But it's certainly not in relation to poverty in other parts of the world.

Edited 15 June, 2011 by LGTL

[View From The Top]

Ditto. My views are either on the left of the Tory Party, the right of Labour -which probably makes me a Lib Dem. I've actually been pleased with some of Cameron's recent actions - I'm glad he's taking pause for thought on Lansley's loony NHS plans. Why do we always see politicians responding to feedback as weak leadership? Surely it's good leadership - Thatcher screwed up big time after 1987 and wouldn't even listen to her own party or cabinet on the Poll Tax or Care in the Community and look how it crippled the Major administrations that followed. If Cameron now sacks Fox, May and Gove in the next re-shuffle I'd be even happier, get some more One Nation Tories in cabinet posts. Don't know the Mail and the other right wing tabloids can't face the facts - we need a new type of conservatism and capitalism, free market economics is as discredited and dead as Marxism was in 1990. To maintain a proper free market, you actually need a lot of artificial intervention. If Cameron can see this, good on him. Miliband certainly doesn't seem to have any answers. Perhaps people will give the Lib Dems some credit. If the Neo Cons in the Tory party don't like it, join UKIP.

 

Bloody hell, I agree with most of that!

[Special K]

Please enlighten me...

 

As has already been established, child poverty in the UK is poverty in relation to UK living standards, and is terrible in its own right. But it's certainly not in relation to poverty in other parts of the world.

 

Your rather flippant initial comment suggested that UK kids living in poverty can still expect holidays at least once a year. You also came up with the rather crass inference that by comparison UK poverty is somehow less offensive than in other places around the world. Glad to see you can now admit to it being terrible, irrespective of where it is.

 

My original point was that i'd rather see more money of this sort going towards helping kids in the UK and getting them out of poverty.

[dune]

If we must help foreigners then we should do it properly and make a real difference. The British government should be buying land overseas and leasing it to pioneering UK farmers who will turn it into comercial farms. This will mean that surplus food is grown, employment created, and and then they'll be able to buy their own medicines. Charity doesn't help poor foreign people - they need a middle class of people to create a self sustaining solution.

[Sour Mash]

Your rather flippant initial comment suggested that UK kids living in poverty can still expect holidays at least once a year. You also came up with the rather crass inference that by comparison UK poverty is somehow less offensive than in other places around the world. Glad to see you can now admit to it being terrible, irrespective of where it is.

 

My original point was that i'd rather see more money of this sort going towards helping kids in the UK and getting them out of poverty.

 

But he's right. 'Poverty' in this country is nothing compared to what many in other parts of the world experience.

[View From The Top]

My original point was that i'd rather see more money of this sort going towards helping kids in the UK and getting them out of poverty.

 

I work in some of the poorest wards in England and see first hand child poverty. However, and I hate to say this as a leftie, it's often down to the work shy, lazy, benefit scrounging parents.

 

Drives me nuts.

[Sour Mash]

If we must help foreigners then we should do it properly and make a real difference. The British government should be buying land overseas and leasing it to pioneering UK farmers who will turn it into comercial farms. This will mean that surplus food is grown, employment created, and and then they'll be able to buy their own medicines. Charity doesn't help poor foreign people - they need a middle class of people to create a self sustaining solution.

 

While you'll no doubt get shot down on here for such comments, there is certainly the argument that structured, long-term systems of governance are more important long-term than just shelling out a fortune to companies manufacturing medicines/vaccinations.

[dune]

While you'll no doubt get shot down on here for such comments, there is certainly the argument that structured, long-term systems of governance are more important long-term than just shelling out a fortune to companies manufacturing medicines/vaccinations.

 

I couldn't care less who takes offence at my post. I know i'm right and that's all i'm bothered about.

[View From The Top]

While you'll no doubt get shot down on here for such comments, there is certainly the argument that structured, long-term systems of governance are more important long-term than just shelling out a fortune to companies manufacturing medicines/vaccinations.

 

It's what NGOs have been doing for years to great effect. They are, and have always been, the best placed to solve the problems BUT they need central government money to do it.

[Sour Mash]

It's what NGOs have been doing for years to great effect. They are, and have always been, the best placed to solve the problems BUT they need central government money to do it.

 

Yes, agreed and I know a few people that work for NGOs and do a great job, but it's still a relatively short-term strategy that papers over the cracks. What should be invested in, is looking at why the NGOs are there and why is this funding coming in - what is missing in the particular country that stops them being able to function at such a relatively basic level. Much harder to sort out, but surely better for all concerned rather than pouring in an endless amount of our hard-earned.

[View From The Top]

Yes, agreed and I know a few people that work for NGOs and do a great job, but it's still a relatively short-term strategy that papers over the cracks. What should be invested in, is looking at why the NGOs are there and why is this funding coming in - what is missing in the particular country that stops them being able to function at such a relatively basic level. Much harder to sort out, but surely better for all concerned rather than pouring in an endless amount of our hard-earned.

 

I don't disagree I just think NGOs are better placed, have more experience and are more trustworthy than governments to achieve it. They can't, however, succeed without government funding.

 

If people want to give food producers in developing nations a helping hand then start buying Fair Trade goods and if governments really cared then they'd stop the IMF forcing countries to produce cash crops for western consumers and allow them to focus on feeding their own.

 

Slightly simplistic I accept.

[Sour Mash]

I don't disagree I just think NGOs are better placed, have more experience and are more trustworthy than governments to achieve it. They can't, however, succeed without government funding.

 

If people want to give food producers in developing nations a helping hand then start buying Fair Trade goods and if governments really cared then they'd stop the IMF forcing countries to produce cash crops for western consumers and allow them to focus on feeding their own.

 

Slightly simplistic I accept.

 

One could possibly argue that the existence and overall efficiency of NGOs is actually to the detriment of these countries long-term. Third world governments know that certain areas will be picked up by NGOs and western Aid and therefore do not need to address the long-term issues that cause the problems in the first place.

 

I am sure that certain schemes are already in place, but I would much rather Cameron's pledge of money be used as some sort of financial incentive to 3rd world governments to demonstrate that they are working towards implementing effective systems themselves. I'm sure there are plenty on here that understand all this much better than me, but what is the probability that we'll continue to be paying this out year after year for many, many years to come?

 

Yes, buying a bit of fair trade chocolate here and there might make us feel good, but on the grand scale of things, it really is a drop in the ocean. With an ever expanding world population, rising food and fuel prices and various environmental/climate issues, can anyone see a realistic end/long-term improvement to 3rd world poverty?

[doddisalegend]

I work in some of the poorest wards in England and see first hand child poverty. However, and I hate to say this as a leftie, it's often down to the work shy, lazy, benefit scrounging parents.

 

Drives me nuts.

 

My wife teachs in skatesville (well paulsgrove) and she'd say the same, she comes home with some really horror stories. It amazes me how many of them can afford fags/drugs/booze but can't afford to buy their kids new clothes or give them a wash.

[bridge too far]

I'm sure I read the other day that aid to India will stop in 2014?

[dune]

I'm sure I read the other day that aid to India will stop in 2014?

 

How can you be sure and then question yourself?

[farawaysaint]

This is a tough one because I am all up for giving aid to 3rd world aid and think we should give a lot lot more.

 

BUT, it really p!sses me off how other countries do so little. Richer countries than us are gaining an unfair competitive advantage and basically sitting back and doing naff all to help the World's poorest. It's the same when some middle eastern sh!t hole needs military intervention, we are always the mugs that do the dirty work.

 

This country needs a MAJOR change in attitude. We are not a colonial power any more, we are just a small skint island off the coast of Northern Europe. Other countries problems are nothing at all to do with us.

 

It's not race mate. Political philosophy is increasingly shifting towards a more ethical outlook so given a few years maybe aid won't be so lopsided. On the other side of the coin you have China which is making huge strides towards doing nothing for anyone but China.

[JustMike]

Cameron pledges ANOTHER £814m towards vaccinating the world's poorest children (on top of £2bn we are already going to donate)

 

As well as being more than five times the £274million pledged by the U.S., it is more than 30 times higher than Germany’s £44million and almost 50 times the £30million given by Spain. Japan gave just £5.5million, while China gave nothing.

 

Raj Shah, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said America could not afford to give more because it was facing a ‘very difficult budget environment’.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002898/David-Cameron-pledges-814m-vaccinating-worlds-poorest-children.html

 

I think it's a disgrace that we are giving money to other countries when we are up to our eyeballs in debt and having to stomach huge budget cuts and tax rises.

 

Cameron is making a huge political error here.

 

you have just gone up in my estimation

[JustMike]

millions for this, millions for schools in Pakistan, millions for pointless wars that no-one wants (apart from USA) yet we have no money!!!

[1976_Child]

All those babies which get these UK-funded vaccinations are then not going to die and we will end up having to feed even more mouths later on when they can't grow enough food. Maybe instead of vaccinations we could buy the poor £850 million worth of condoms instead. And send Dune out to teach them how to use them. Nah... 'cause then the 'darkies' wouldn't be getting HIV so there would still be more people not dying for us to feed when their harvests fail.

 

Oh. Wait, have I just been controversial?

[SuperMikey]

millions for this, millions for schools in Pakistan, millions for pointless wars that no-one wants (apart from USA) yet we have no money!!!

 

That was just bullsh!t electioneering by the Tories so they had an excuse to cut the public sector down to the size it was when Mama Thatcher was in charge. We're still by far one of the richest countries in the world and have a massive economy considering the size of our labour force and country. We have the billions to spend on stuff like defence but obviously not enough to keep a few hundred thousand public sector workers employed...

[dune]

That was just bullsh!t electioneering by the Tories so they had an excuse to cut the public sector down to the size it was when Mama Thatcher was in charge. We're still by far one of the richest countries in the world and have a massive economy considering the size of our labour force and country. We have the billions to spend on stuff like defence but obviously not enough to keep a few hundred thousand public sector workers employed...

 

lol.

[SuperMikey]

lol.

 

F*ck off Dune. Can you go and be a pointless c*nt at the pub instead of on this forum please? Thx.

 

.....and that was my 5000th post.

[Jonnyboy]

That was just bullsh!t electioneering by the Tories so they had an excuse to cut the public sector down to the size it was when Mama Thatcher was in charge. We're still by far one of the richest countries in the world and have a massive economy considering the size of our labour force and country. We have the billions to spend on stuff like defence but obviously not enough to keep a few hundred thousand public sector workers employed...

 

Well put Mikey

[dune]

F*ck off Dune. Can you go and be a pointless c*nt at the pub instead of on this forum please? Thx.

 

.....and that was my 5000th post.

 

I was loling at the naivity of the suggestion that we don't have anything to worry about. The budget deficit is very serious. The mountain of debt is very serious. Couple this with the decline of the west and the rise of emerging economies and the future is very uncertain.

[Jonnyboy]

I was loling at the naivity of the suggestion that we don't have anything to worry about. The budget deficit is very serious. The mountain of debt is very serious. Couple this with the decline of the west and the rise of emerging economies and the future is very uncertain.

 

We've never had it so good. Dont be afraid people! Ignore doom-mongers.

[SuperMikey]

I was loling at the naivity of the suggestion that we don't have anything to worry about. The budget deficit is very serious. The mountain of debt is very serious. Couple this with the decline of the west and the rise of emerging economies and the future is very uncertain.

 

If you had articulated that in your post then I probably wouldn't have called you a c*nt. Probably.

 

Of course we have things to worry about, the deficit is out of hand and should be tackled appropriately (by growing the economy to suit and then introducing some cuts, as the US have done). However, would you care to show me a first-world country that is debt and deficit free? The world economy is a perennial circle of debt, cuts, borrowing, debt, cuts, borrowing etc. That's just how it works. I would be absolutely amazed if we managed to reduce our deficit to £0.00, because I just don't really think it's possible for a nation of our size. We in this country are used to a quality of life that requires massive amounts of spending by the government, but we have a limited income without the option of borrowing which doesn't stretch that far. Right-wingers (and a fair few lefties as well) moan about having this deficit but also moan that the streets look a mess, there's uneducated kids in the dole queue and MY FERKING WHEELIE BIN HASN'T BEEN COLLECTED IN WEEKS! This stuff requires spending, and it highlights the double-standards we have in this society.

 

The future is uncertain, but for now we're fine - despite what Mr Osbourne might tell you at one of his Bullingdon Club dinners.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

If you had articulated that in your post then I probably wouldn't have called you a c*nt. Probably.

 

Of course we have things to worry about, the deficit is out of hand and should be tackled appropriately (by growing the economy to suit and then introducing some cuts, as the US have done). However, would you care to show me a first-world country that is debt and deficit free? The world economy is a perennial circle of debt, cuts, borrowing, debt, cuts, borrowing etc. That's just how it works. I would be absolutely amazed if we managed to reduce our deficit to £0.00, because I just don't really think it's possible for a nation of our size. We in this country are used to a quality of life that requires massive amounts of spending by the government, but we have a limited income without the option of borrowing which doesn't stretch that far. Right-wingers (and a fair few lefties as well) moan about having this deficit but also moan that the streets look a mess, there's uneducated kids in the dole queue and MY FERKING WHEELIE BIN HASN'T BEEN COLLECTED IN WEEKS! This stuff requires spending, and it highlights the double-standards we have in this society.

 

The future is uncertain, but for now we're fine - despite what Mr Osbourne might tell you at one of his Bullingdon Club dinners.

 

In fairness Mikey even if you were studying economics at Cambridge I think Osbourne is better placed to judge. Just because he is a toff does not make him stupid.

[SuperMikey]

In fairness Mikey even if you were studying economics at Cambridge I think Osbourne is better placed to judge. Just because he is a toff does not make him stupid.

 

He's definitely better placed, but whether he is stupid or not is up for debate

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

That was just bullsh!t electioneering by the Tories so they had an excuse to cut the public sector down to the size it was when Mama Thatcher was in charge. We're still by far one of the richest countries in the world and have a massive economy considering the size of our labour force and country. We have the billions to spend on stuff like defence but obviously not enough to keep a few hundred thousand public sector workers employed...

 

Now I am not an economist Mikey but I think it works something like this; the private sector pays for the public sector. The Public Sector now employs over 40% of the workforce this is not sustainable so you have to get the private sector more efficient so you can get more people from the public into the 'productive sector'.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

He's definitely better placed, but whether he is stupid or not is up for debate

 

Well I can only judge you on your posts but I would suspect he is brighter than you even if he is a wicked tory toff!

[SuperMikey]

Now I am not an economist Mikey but I think it works something like this; the private sector pays for the public sector. The Public Sector now employs over 40% of the workforce this is not sustainable so you have to get the private sector more efficient so you can get more people from the public into the 'productive sector'.

 

Or you raise the taxes on the private sector, encourage more businesses to set up headquarters in this country... or perhaps just take money out of other areas of the budget in order to keep people in a job with which the government gets tax money?

 

Well I can only judge you on your posts but I would suspect he is brighter than you even if he is a wicked tory toff!

 

I think you're probably right, otherwise I would be studying Neurosciences rather than Anthropology...

[St Marco]

Agree it ****es me off too.

 

But only because i know a few people with families who worked in the public sector and got sacked because they were told they could not afford to pay them anymore.

 

To then see this on top of the money we give to Pakistan (£1bn or something?) so they can make a school. Normally i would not have a issue with that but then you see how much they spend on their defence. They bought four submarines in january for £2bn. And what have they used those subs for? http://sunkey.co.in/2011/05/2-pakistani-submarines-searching-for-osamas-underwater-body-collide/ two of them crashed into each other looking for Osama's body......

 

I think we need to start taking care of our own before we can try to take care of those abroad. When you give out basically £2bn in aid but then have to sack lot's of people to pay for it seems wrong to me.

[LGTL]

Now I am not an economist Mikey but I think it works something like this; the private sector pays for the public sector. The Public Sector now employs over 40% of the workforce this is not sustainable so you have to get the private sector more efficient so you can get more people from the public into the 'productive sector'.

 

The Public Sector pay tax too, at the same rate as the Private Sector remember...

Edited 15 June, 2011 by LGTL

[View From The Top]

In fairness Mikey even if you were studying economics at Cambridge I think Osbourne is better placed to judge. Just because he is a toff does not make him stupid.

 

He's stupid, toff or not.

[dune]

He's stupid, toff or not.

 

He once tried to organise a fight at the bullingdon club end of year ball and posted all about it on the the tattler forum. The funniest part of it is that he wasn't even going to the ball. Thick as ****.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

The Public Sector pay tax too, at the same rate as the Private Sector remember...

 

Have you not heard that everything we have is 'gold plated'? That includes our income tax payments. I only pay roughly £50 a month income tax because I have a gold plated income tax code.

[LGTL]

Have you not heard that everything we have is 'gold plated'? That includes our income tax payments. I only pay roughly £50 a month income tax because I have a gold plated income tax code.

 

747fuckyouprivatesector?