The Politics Thread 2020

[Highgate]

5 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Might be an unpopular view here (well let's be honest most of mine are) but does anyone agree that she would put an immediate freeze on our foreign aid budget?

Also where are all the high profile celebs who cant wait to wave their cheque books and tell us we all should be donating money when is a crisis in another country? They all seem very quiet at the moment.

Directing various aspects of national budgets towards health services and researching a vaccine in the face of this crisis seems perfectly sensible and necessary but maybe military spending on new weaponry should be the first area of public spending to be sacrificed globally. 

[GboroRam]

40 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Directing various aspects of national budgets towards health services and researching a vaccine in the face of this crisis seems perfectly sensible and necessary but maybe military spending on new weaponry should be the first area of public spending to be sacrificed globally. 

How about a tax increase to fund vital research and equipment purchase? How about a 1% tax on movement of capital e.g. share purchases? A major hunt down of offshore accounts holding tax evading funds? 

[1of4]

4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Might be an unpopular view here (well let's be honest most of mine are) but does anyone agree that she would put an immediate freeze on our foreign aid budget?

Also where are all the high profile celebs who cant wait to wave their cheque books and tell us we all should be donating money when is a crisis in another country? They all seem very quiet at the moment.

With the amount of money the government are planning to spend during the crisis, a few million quid donated from a few celebrities are neither here or there. 

I don't need celebs feeling good about themselves, by handing out a quid now. I want them and every other member of the population that can afford to pay a little bit more in tax to do so, once this crisis is over. I don't want them moaning about having their tax bill increased or hearing how the super rich are avoiding paying any tax at all.

It's about time that billionaires who have made their vast fortunes off the sweat of our nation, to finally pay some of that wealth back to the country.

Will any of the above happen? I very much doubt it . The rich will  isolate themselves from the aftermath of this crisis and will carry on as normal, while the rest of us have to pick up the pieces of rebuilding the country and it's economy.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Directing various aspects of national budgets towards health services and researching a vaccine in the face of this crisis seems perfectly sensible and necessary but maybe military spending on new weaponry should be the first area of public spending to be sacrificed globally. 

Possibly.

I'd prefer to think our country is able to protect itself rather than funding countries who are so poor that they are still funding space exploration though!

[Highgate]

22 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Possibly.

I'd prefer to think our country is able to protect itself rather than funding countries who are so poor that they are still funding space exploration though!

You guys are pretty well protected already, comparatively speaking.  No conventional army is going to attack you. 

Foreign aid is tricky, and getting it right is riddled with problems.  But it's very worthwhile when it's done responsibly, it certainly wouldn't be the first expenditure I'd like to cut.  I see what you are saying about the space exploration however (which is money is very well spent generally speaking), obviously if you are receiving aid from abroad you would want to make sure it's always directed where it is most needed.  On the other hand, promoting scientific research of all kinds is a great way to help build a self sufficient economy in a developing country, which should be the ultimate goal of foreign aid. 

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

16 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You guys are pretty well protected already, comparatively speaking.  No conventional army is going to attack you. 

Foreign aid is tricky, and getting it right is riddled with problems.  But it's very worthwhile when it's done responsibly, it certainly wouldn't be the first expenditure I'd like to cut.  I see what you are saying about the space exploration however (which is money is very well spent generally speaking), obviously if you are receiving aid from abroad you would want to make sure it's always directed where it is most needed.  On the other hand, promoting scientific research of all kinds is a great way to help build a self sufficient economy in a developing country, which should be the ultimate goal of foreign aid. 

 

I believe "International Aid" as the UK government operates it is at least in part a trade deal negotiation tool.

There is no other plausible explanation for making "aid" payments to India.

Expect that budget to increase in a post Brexit world.

 

[GboroRam]

20 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I believe "International Aid" as the UK government operates it is at least in part a trade deal negotiation tool.

There is no other plausible explanation for making "aid" payments to India.

Expect that budget to increase in a post Brexit world.

 

Taking back control (of money we bribe countries with) 

[Uptherams]

4 hours ago, Highgate said:

Directing various aspects of national budgets towards health services and researching a vaccine in the face of this crisis seems perfectly sensible and necessary but maybe military spending on new weaponry should be the first area of public spending to be sacrificed globally. 

I imagine you're not very good at strategy games. ?

[Highgate]

56 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

I imagine you're not very good at strategy games. ?

I challenge you to a game of ...........er........what games are we talking about?  ? 

If every nation were to reduce their military budgets....think of all the medical research that could be done and hospital beds provided?  Not likely to happen I know. 

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, Highgate said:

I challenge you to a game of ...........er........what games are we talking about?  ? 

If every nation were to reduce their military budgets....think of all the medical research that could be done and hospital beds provided?  Not likely to happen I know. 

Well I think you'd probably do ok at 'strategy games' if fr no other reason than you're not totally blinkered to the notion of reducing budgets for infeasibly high-spending government departments. International aid, as a few have pointed out, amounts to around £14 billion and effectively secures us contracts and favourable trading terms with those regions who benefit, India being a prime example. How much of the financial benefit trickles down to the man on the street is open to debate.

With our defence budget comfortably outstripping that of every nation bar the US, one might sensibly argue that at a time like now, a portion of that money could be better spent. With the renewal of just the Trident program set yo cost in excess of £200 billion, it does rather beg the question, is it value for money right now or at any other time for that matter. 

 

[Ghost of Clough]

49 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Well I think you'd probably do ok at 'strategy games' if fr no other reason than you're not totally blinkered to the notion of reducing budgets for infeasibly high-spending government departments. International aid, as a few have pointed out, amounts to around £14 billion and effectively secures us contracts and favourable trading terms with those regions who benefit, India being a prime example. How much of the financial benefit trickles down to the man on the street is open to debate.

With our defence budget comfortably outstripping that of every nation bar the US, one might sensibly argue that at a time like now, a portion of that money could be better spent. With the renewal of just the Trident program set yo cost in excess of £200 billion, it does rather beg the question, is it value for money right now or at any other time for that matter. 

 

Isn’t that £14b per year, whereas the £200b is spread over the 30 year life span of a Trident submarine (less than £7b per year).

Cuts to the likes of the defence sector and HS2 would result in a mass of job losses... something we must avoid right now. 

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Cuts to the likes of the defence sector and HS2 would result in a mass of job losses... something we must avoid right now. 

I'm sure there's plenty of other rail or road projects that could be done. HS2 is a total white elephant!

[Comrade 86]

38 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Isn’t that £14b per year, whereas the £200b is spread over the 30 year life span of a Trident submarine (less than £7b per year).

Cuts to the likes of the defence sector and HS2 would result in a mass of job losses... something we must avoid right now. 

No, it's the cost of renewing, as stated. The Vanguard subs and Trident warheads are now at end of life. Even once replaced, the annual cost of maintaining the system runs to billions. And you may rightly posit that cuts will cost jobs but so will Coronavirus. What matters more, people or the economy? I'm sick to the eye-teeth of the Cummins line that the latter should be prioritised. Unfortunately it may be that we've followed the twit over the edge of the abyss before folk realise his agenda has nothing to do with the health of the nation and everything to do with keeping the wheels of capitalism well greased.

I assume that folk who are concerned about job losses are unconcerned by the 20,000 nurses and doctors laid off under the current government, likewise the police. Bit strange then to be so worried about jobs lost were the nuclear deterrent budget trimmed. It's not like it will be, after all. Heyho, better to have a large arms industry than nurses and other key-workers! 

[Van der MoodHoover]

47 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I'm sure there's plenty of other rail or road projects that could be done. HS2 is a total white elephant!

Filling in some potholes would be a start. Or sorting out the franchise mess on the railways. Our local one is going down 6pan....then what?

[Ghost of Clough]

5 hours ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

No, it's the cost of renewing, as stated. The Vanguard subs and Trident warheads are now at end of life. Even once replaced, the annual cost of maintaining the system runs to billions. And you may rightly posit that cuts will cost jobs but so will Coronavirus. What matters more, people or the economy? I'm sick to the eye-teeth of the Cummins line that the latter should be prioritised. Unfortunately it may be that we've followed the twit over the edge of the abyss before folk realise his agenda has nothing to do with the health of the nation and everything to do with keeping the wheels of capitalism well greased.

I assume that folk who are concerned about job losses are unconcerned by the 20,000 nurses and doctors laid off under the current government, likewise the police. Bit strange then to be so worried about jobs lost were the nuclear deterrent budget trimmed. It's not like it will be, after all. Heyho, better to have a large arms industry than nurses and other key-workers! 

No, it’s the cost over the life. £205b over 30 years according to the Guardian. 3/4 of that is when in service. 
On further research, it takes at least 10 years for design and build of the submarines, with at least 30 years life span. So we’re actually talking about just £5b per year.

300,000 people are said to be employed in the defence industry with many more indirectly involved. Cut the Trident programme and you’ll see a big chunk of those 300,000+ out of jobs - more than the 20,000 nurses/doctors you claim to have been laid off. “Between March 2010 and March 2019, the number of doctors and nurses rose“. This site claims the figure rose by 27,000 from 397,000 to 424,000

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

No, it’s the cost over the life. £205b over 30 years according to the Guardian. 3/4 of that is when in service. 
On further research, it takes at least 10 years for design and build of the submarines, with at least 30 years life span. So we’re actually talking about just £5b per year.

300,000 people are said to be employed in the defence industry with many more indirectly involved. Cut the Trident programme and you’ll see a big chunk of those 300,000+ out of jobs - more than the 20,000 nurses/doctors you claim to have been laid off. “Between March 2010 and March 2019, the number of doctors and nurses rose“. This site claims the figure rose by 27,000 from 397,000 to 424,000

Even if one accepts these figures, how many of the 300,000 employed by the defence industry are directly involved in renewing and maintaining Trident. And what is the justification for us having the 2nd largest defence spend on the planet? I think folk are beginning to realise that spending billions on warmongering to protect the petrodollar might not be in their best interests after all, especially when we're 20,000 nurses and nearly 20,000 hospital beds light as a direct result of Tory cuts since 2009. I mean really, we don't even have protective masks for our doctors and nurses. 

When people are dying in their hundreds every day and it's already in the post, good luck persuading folk that the defence budget matters more than their kids, parents and siblings. If it were up to me I'd father rather try and save 10,000 lives than 15,000 jobs. Freeze defence spend, freeze foreign aid, scrap HS2, scrap vanity projects that never even happen, protect the people that you serve - this should be the mandate of the current government. Jobs can be recreated, economies turned around, but last time I checked, even the Tories can't raise people from the dead.

Anyway, we're are miles apart on this issue so given the current climate, I'll not labour it further. Squabbling over hypothetical budget cuts seems a bit crass right now.

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Even if one accepts these figures, how many of the 300,000 employed by the defence industry are directly involved in renewing and maintaining Trident.

The vast majority will be.

3 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

And what is the justification for us having the 2nd largest defence spend on the planet? I think folk are beginning to realise that spending billions on warmongering to protect the petrodollar might not be in their best interests after all, especially when we're 20,000 nurses and nearly 20,000 hospital beds light as a direct result of Tory cuts since 2009. I mean really, we don't even have protective masks for our doctors and nurses. 

3 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

When people are dying in their hundreds every day and it's already in the post, good luck persuading folk that the defence budget matters more than their kids, parents and siblings. If it were up to me I'd father rather try and save 10,000 lives than 15,000 jobs. Freeze defence spend, freeze foreign aid, scrap HS2, scrap vanity projects that never even happen, protect the people that you serve - this should be the mandate of the current government. Jobs can be recreated, economies turned around, but last time I checked, even the Tories can't raise people from the dead.

Anyway, we're are miles apart on this issue so given the current climate, I'll not labour it further. Squabbling over hypothetical budget cuts seems a bit crass right now.

It doesn't seem to be a case of spending on one or the other. It seems to be all at the expense of increasing public debt.

[GboroRam]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The vast majority will be.

It doesn't seem to be a case of spending on one or the other. It seems to be all at the expense of increasing public debt.

Meaningless without a "per capita" comparison. Couldn't find a more up to date one but we know how spending has gone since 2015.

Bear in mind new tech generally comes with a cost, we should be increasing the investment per capita, not stagnating.

[Comrade 86]

31 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The vast majority will be.

Nonsense. Sorry, but that's a ridiculous claim.

[FindernRam]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

And what is the justification for us having the 2nd largest defence spend on the planet?

. Do you think Russia would have invaded Crimea if Ukraine had a decent sized military and a nuclear deterrent. The UK is strategically an almost perfect spot to control Europe. We dare not weaken ourselves. We cannot rely on Europe at all and Trump may or may not help depending on who has upset him most that day!