Bolitics The New Condem Government

[rendelc]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And one Twitter photo and the views of a couple of bystanders doesn't prove anything, one way or another.  You could be right, and they might simply have turned up to a place they thought was full of black people and started randonly targetting them simply because of their colour.  Or they could have been reacting to specific intelligence, and then targetted people based on their behaviour in the station, as their regulations appears to allow.

 

 

looks like the areas they targeted were

 

 

 

Some 139 people were arrested at locations including London, Durham, Manchester, Wales and Somerset

 

 

Somerset !!!

 

If they were illegal , then they should be arrested .

[mockingbird_franklin]

It seems the Great Crapsby aka Iain Duncy-smith hasn't lost his touch, all he touches turns to chaos.I guess anything being the brainchild of a dim incompetent fantasist is always going to be a dodgy proposition

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/02/universal-credit-staff-flagship-reform

 

and to illustrate what a work of 'special genius' it is

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/universal-credit-less-pay

Edited August 3, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[villaajax]

[Avfc96]

I understand that services need to be cut to a certain extent but why has the Police, Fire service etc been cut and we still give away billions in foreign aid??????

[mockingbird_franklin]

to answer that question, do some digging on how foreign aid is 'given' to these countries, it tends to come with conditions or as a bribe. the question you maybe should be asking is why don't we create our own currency rather than let private banks create it out of thin air for us then make us pay it back with interest, The difference is we can't create the wealth out of thin air to pay them back, we have to to pay them back with real assets or wealth created with our sweat equity (labour)

Edited August 3, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[Dr_Pangloss]

Interestingly, Britain spent around 0.6% of GNI on foreign aid last year, which is actually above the average for all those in the Development Co-operation Directorate (DAC) [i.e. all of Europe's major countries + US + Japan and South Korea.

[coda]

to answer that question, do some digging on how foreign aid is 'given' to these countries, it tends to come with conditions or as a bribe

 

What sort of conditions? Do they have to buy stuff from us or do we get their produce at a reduced rate?

 

I heard that years ago a large part of US 'aid' to South America went to US corporations trading there.

[Awol]

 

to answer that question, do some digging on how foreign aid is 'given' to these countries, it tends to come with conditions or as a bribe

 

What sort of conditions? Do they have to buy stuff from us or do we get their produce at a reduced rate?

Conditions is the wrong word, sweeteners is probably more accurate although it doesn't always pay off. For example we were giving 100's of millions in aid to India per year despite the fact it has a nuclear arsenal and a space programme. Why? The hope was they would buy the Typhoon fighter aircraft from us, a deal worth several billions to UK industry.  Instead the sneaky buggers went and got their new planes from the French!  We might also give money to nations in an attempt to influence their foreign policy, although if a country has such poor governance that its leaders can be bought so readily you always run the risk of being out bid.  A more effective policy is simply to bribe the key individuals directly as the Americans, Russians, Chinese and French are fond of doing, but the UK's anti-corruption laws prevent that, so foreign aid is a means to try and achieve the same result.

 

Still, it does allow people in Whitehall, university common rooms and local political party branches to feel all morally superior, as the rest of the world carries on as usual and the UK misses out on valuable contracts and the jobs they create.  The continuing naivety of our country regarding this issue is probably its biggest challenge in meeting the realities of globalisation.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Awol

[peterms]

 

to answer that question, do some digging on how foreign aid is 'given' to these countries, it tends to come with conditions or as a bribe

 

What sort of conditions? Do they have to buy stuff from us or do we get their produce at a reduced rate?

 

I heard that years ago a large part of US 'aid' to South America went to US corporations trading there.

 

 

Aid comes in different forms.  Sometimes it's disaster relief, eg the offers by Cuba and Venezuela to help the US after Hurricane Katrine (the offers were not accepted, I believe).  Often, it's giving (or typically lending) money in order to fund the purchase of goods and services from companies which the "donor" country wants to benefit.  This has very often led to quite inappropriate forms of aid, such as the purchase of tractors with no proper support for spare parts and where tractors aren't the best approach in any case, or imposing the purchase of GM seeds in order to create dependency on future supplies of the same.  Sometimes it's straight-up destructiveness, like promoting arms sales which foster regional instability, leading to impoverishment, death and disease, and massive population movements.

 

The rationale for aid is supposed to be that both parties benefit, because carefully planned and well implemented aid should make the recipient wealthier by encouraging economic development, which in the longer term benefits world trade.  We will export more to wealthier countries than to poorer ones.  If instead the purpose becomes just flogging contracts for the benefit of arms dealers and Monsanto, that is a perversion of the idea.

 

There's an important environmental point.  Poor countries will seek to develop and get richer.  That can happen by developing in environmentally destructive ways, as the West has done, or else by supporting environmentally sustainable ways of developing.  The nightmare outcome would be that billions more people start to act like we have, with the kind of environmental consequences we are trying to reduce.  Using aid to help the development of sustainable ways of poor countries getting richer is the way to go.  One example would be massive expansion of solar power in all those poor, sunny countries where it works better than in Salford and Inverness.  That would reduce future coal burning and oil burning, and might help to reduce the future catastrophe which we are sleepwalking towards.

[tonyh29]

Or there is money we give where by everyone gets rich except the people the money was intended to help .... Oh wait that's the EU isn't it

[Awol]

Or there is money we give where by everyone gets rich except the people the money was intended to help .... Oh wait that's the EU isn't it

No that's keep French farmers in house and home, as it was always intended to do.

[snowychap]

Michael Fallon issues warning about Tony.

 

 

A warning that fracking may soon lead to fierce resistance from middle-class southern nimbys has been given by the energy minister Michael Fallon.

Fallon, a strong supporter of shale gas, told a private meeting in Westminster: "We are going to see how thick their rectory walls are, whether they like the flaring at the end of the drive."

Fallon, who is MP for Sevenoaks in Kent, said exploratory studies for fracking were already poised to start in the north of England and were set to spread the length and breadth of southern England.

He said: "The second area being studied is the Weald. It's from Dorset all the way along through Hampshire, Sussex, East Sussex, West Sussex, all the way perhaps a bit into Surrey and even into my county of Kent. It's right there."

 

...more on link

 

[bickster]

Or there is money we give where by everyone gets rich except the people the money was intended to help .... Oh wait that's the EU isn't it

No that's keep French farmers in house and home, as it was always intended to do.

And no English farms get subsidies at all?

[Awol]

 

 

Or there is money we give where by everyone gets rich except the people the money was intended to help .... Oh wait that's the EU isn't it

No that's keep French farmers in house and home, as it was always intended to do.

 

And no English farms get subsidies at all?

 

Aside from the fact it was a tongue in cheek joke directed at Tony, actually we don't do well out of the CAP, and between 2007 - 2013 made a net contribution of £7.1 billion. Since Blair gave up part of the rebate that contribution is now increasing year on year.

 

Source

 

If we wanted to subsidise our farmers then sending that money to Brussels and receiving less in return seems like a fairly brainless way of going about it.

[peterms]

 

 

Or there is money we give where by everyone gets rich except the people the money was intended to help .... Oh wait that's the EU isn't it

No that's keep French farmers in house and home, as it was always intended to do.

 

And no English farms get subsidies at all?

 

 

Well, the big landowners get a lot.  Iain Duncan Smith received €1.5m over 10 years, for example.  Here.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

Well, the big landowners get a lot.  Iain Duncan Smith received €1.5m over 10 years, for example.  Here.

 

Capitalism and welfare cuts for the poor, sick and disabled, socialism and plentiful welfare for the rich

[peterms]

 

 

 

Well, the big landowners get a lot.  Iain Duncan Smith received €1.5m over 10 years, for example.  Here.

 

Capitalism and welfare cuts for the poor, sick and disabled, socialism and plentiful welfare for the rich

 

 

 

I say!  I'll raise a glahhhs of Pimms to that!  Chin chin!

[drat01]

 

 

 

Well, the big landowners get a lot.  Iain Duncan Smith received €1.5m over 10 years, for example.  Here.

 

At least you didn't use that well know "impartial" organisation Open Europe as your source of info Peter 

[Awol]

 

 

 

 

Well, the big landowners get a lot.  Iain Duncan Smith received €1.5m over 10 years, for example.  Here.

 

At least you didn't use that well know "impartial" organisation Open Europe as your source of info Peter 

 

So are you saying the figures are wrong? If so, why? If not, what's the problem?

[drat01]

The day that organisations like the one you quote give an impartial and objective viewpoint is the day I take them seriously. You may want use a mouthpiece for the UK not being part of the EU as your justification, and so be it, but in terms of any sort of credibility, I think I would trust some of the ITK's on Twitter more