Not anyone I had ever heard of to be honest but in the scope of the numbers Rishi was dishing up today this seems odd.
The theory I've heard is that Boris Johnson is throwing the Brexit right, who have never been keen on International Aid, some red meat before he shafts them with his EU deal.
60% support for cut in foreign aid is a lot more than the Brexit right
Big G (and others) is it not possible that:
1. Foreign aid is not popular with the public - it never really has been, except among the well-heeled middle classes. There has always been, and always will be, a majority against it in polls. 2. Nevertheless, foreign aid should continue undiminished, as it is recognised that it helps the poor overseas and, coincidentally but significantly, contributes to Britain's 'soft power'. 3. That's why governments of all stripes have maintained the 0.7% contribution. 4. Therefore this government shouldn't renege on its manifesto commitment - the aid is being reduced anyway, as it's 0.7% of less.
The route to poor governance really is always doing what opinion polls show is "what the people want", rather than what is the right thing to do.
Of course, if you are a populist then: what people want = the right thing to do.
Quite so. And if we'd followed that line, we'd probably never have ended either capital or corporal punishment, and there'd be no immigrants in the UK. And so on.
It's a teacher trope, and I'm cautious about using it, but I can't shake the question
"If 60% of the public told you to jump off a cliff, would you do that?"
Not anyone I had ever heard of to be honest but in the scope of the numbers Rishi was dishing up today this seems odd.
The theory I've heard is that Boris Johnson is throwing the Brexit right, who have never been keen on International Aid, some red meat before he shafts them with his EU deal.
60% support for cut in foreign aid is a lot more than the Brexit right
Big G (and others) is it not possible that:
1. Foreign aid is not popular with the public - it never really has been, except among the well-heeled middle classes. There has always been, and always will be, a majority against it in polls. 2. Nevertheless, foreign aid should continue undiminished, as it is recognised that it helps the poor overseas and, coincidentally but significantly, contributes to Britain's 'soft power'. 3. That's why governments of all stripes have maintained the 0.7% contribution. 4. Therefore this government shouldn't renege on its manifesto commitment - the aid is being reduced anyway, as it's 0.7% of less.
The route to poor governance really is always doing what opinion polls show is "what the people want", rather than what is the right thing to do.
1: True 2: Not really. I've seen no evidence at all that it meaningfully let alone significantly contributes to UK's soft power. 3: Also not true. For most of Labour's period of office it was running at 0.37% of GDP so even "cut" it will still be more than Labour were spending. 4: It can't be afforded. The deficit is much bigger and this is expenditure we literally can't afford and it does nothing to help the UK's economy. Any other cuts would hurt our economy more.
Also notworthy is that this is the only department not to face austerity in recent years besides the NHS. A return to austerity in other departments isn't really viable, austerity in the NHS isn't viable, so this is the only soft money left. And if we can afford to pay David Milliband millions per year for "charity" or "aid" then this is a sector that can afford some austerity.
Given the recent promise of large amounts of cash to the military, one can only surmise that the proposed cut in the foreign aid budget represents a shift from the carrot to the stick approach to foreign policy. Popular among some, perhaps a majority, but not necessarily the best investment in the future.
You know the famous quotation: give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, blow him up with a drone and you'll win Blyth Valley. Or something like that.
Not a single other comparable economy is honouring the international 0.7% commitment right now so I fail to see why we should either. If we did in the future as part of getting other economies to do the same then that would raise more money but right now us continuing to do so unilaterally is as insane as advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament during the Cold War.
I'd be delighted to restore the 0.7% of GDP commitment to foreign aid, without other economies doing so too, if anyone can explain how the UK can afford to do that this year without a budget deficit. If anyone has any good ideas how to afford that then I'm all ears.
I don't see an issue, necessarily, with maintaining it even now, nor do I think a failure of others to reach that level in itself means we should do the same or that it is even ok.
However, it does place into context how outraged we should be, and I think when people treat something most others don't do either as beyond the pale, it is a hard sell to the public. Particularly when there is not a magic line wherein you are moral at 0.7% but not at, say, 0.6%.
It's still possible, maybe even reasonable, to criticise based on priorities and moralities, but it really feels more like one of those decisions to be analysed with detachment rather than some great moral outrage.
I agree completely.
And with cold detachment our budget deficit means that spending for the sake of spending is totally unaffordable.
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
A British-Australian academic serving a 10-year sentence in Iran for espionage has been freed in exchange for three jailed Iranians, Iranian media say.
Don't know the case, but just shows that Iran imprisons westerners as hostages to extract concessions.
In our case I think they want us to pay them some money that they (and I think most reasonable observers) believe we owe them.
My father was a junior civil servant involved in the sale of the tanks (or rather the non sale) to Iran at the time. He often regales the events much to our embarrassment as he doesn't get that he is telling the story of a major cockup. In fairness to him I doubt he was at all responsible.
The cherry on the cake being the tanks were eventually finally sold to Iraq.
Are you sure? I didn't know that the Iraqis got Chieftains (or later variants thereof such as Khalid/Shir), except by capture of Iranian ones.
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
"Cheat" is such an ugly word. "Hero" is a bit more like it.
Diego Maradona can now shake God by that hand.....
RIP. Let's be magnanimous.
Maradona's little trick has been performed thousands of times around the world. I've seen it done many times, as a player and then as an official. His effort against England in the World Cup was the one and only time I ever saw a player get away with it. I think he was as surprised as anybody that the goal was given. And these were supposed to be World Class officials?
He can certainly RIP as far as I'm concerned. Not sure I would be so generous to the officials in question.
[Incidentally it is hard to say who was more at fault, the referee or the linesman. If they were in their normal positions the referee would be looking at Maradonas back and the linesman has the side-on view. It is possible for one or the other to be unsighted, but not both, which is why the ref normally runs a diagonal away from his two linesmen. What may have happened is that the ref was unsighted and the linesman didn't have the bottle to make a big call, but one way or another it was a dreadful display by the officials. I never really blamed Maradona.]
When I was about 10 , BlackAdder II was my favourite comedy, to a ridiculous level of anorakness; I reckon I could probably still recite every word. I hadn't seen the first series so went and bought the video with my pocket money, and thought it was shit. Then BlackAdder the Third came on, I was super excited, and felt very let down. "Goes Forth" was better but none of them hold a candle to "II" for me.
Anyway, I digress. A couple of Saturday evenings ago we were watching an episode of The Crown Season One on Netflix, and I said to my missus that it reminded me of a scene from the first episode of BlackAdder II, where Bob/Kate says to Edmund she'd like him to meet her father, Edmund turns around and asks what he thinks is an old beggar loitering in the corridor to move along, not knowing it is his prospective FiL.
The episode of The Crown ends, we switch our tv from Netflix to Sky, (this is 830-9ish on a Saturday Night, Prime Time viewing in lockdown), and what is on BBC1? That very episode, a 35 year old repeat, two mins away from the scene I had described
I`m not a fan of costume dramas. So haven`t watched The Crown. Should I?
To be perfectly blunt, if maintaining spending on foreign aid in full is the issue that decides your vote, you're not exactly the largest or most significant part of the Tory electoral coalition. Especially in a time of fiscal crisis, borrowing tens of billions just to give it away when the money is desperately needed at home would anger a lot of ordinary voters.
A British-Australian academic serving a 10-year sentence in Iran for espionage has been freed in exchange for three jailed Iranians, Iranian media say.
Don't know the case, but just shows that Iran imprisons westerners as hostages to extract concessions.
In our case I think they want us to pay them some money that they (and I think most reasonable observers) believe we owe them.
My father was a junior civil servant involved in the sale of the tanks (or rather the non sale) to Iran at the time. He often regales the events much to our embarrassment as he doesn't get that he is telling the story of a major cockup. In fairness to him I doubt he was at all responsible.
The cherry on the cake being the tanks were eventually finally sold to Iraq.
Are you sure? I didn't know that the Iraqis got Chieftains (or later variants thereof such as Khalid/Shir), except by capture of Iranian ones.
The Iranian's (under the Shah) bought Chieftains and a design for export to Iran later became the Challenger.
The Iraqis bought Soviet equipment (mostly) in that period.
Strange - Maradona has died 15 years to the day George Best died
That is a poignant coincidence. Maradona 60. George did not quite make that. Great players of course - both in the GOAT conversation - but one is also struck by the names. I am anyway. Georgie Best, Diego Maradona. Hard to come up with a better pair of names than this for a pair of shooting star "bad boy" footballers. It's almost like once given their names they had to do what they did. A career in construction or retail was out of the question.
Strange - Maradona has died 15 years to the day George Best died
That is a poignant coincidence. Maradona 60. George did not quite make that. Great players of course - both in the GOAT conversation - but one is also struck by the names. I am anyway. Georgie Best, Diego Maradona. Hard to come up with a better pair of names than this for a pair of shooting star "bad boy" footballers. It's almost like once given their names they had to do what they did. A career in construction or retail was out of the question.
As a season ticket holder I watched George Best throughout his career at Old Trafford
When I was about 10 , BlackAdder II was my favourite comedy, to a ridiculous level of anorakness; I reckon I could probably still recite every word. I hadn't seen the first series so went and bought the video with my pocket money, and thought it was shit. Then BlackAdder the Third came on, I was super excited, and felt very let down. "Goes Forth" was better but none of them hold a candle to "II" for me.
Anyway, I digress. A couple of Saturday evenings ago we were watching an episode of The Crown Season One on Netflix, and I said to my missus that it reminded me of a scene from the first episode of BlackAdder II, where Bob/Kate says to Edmund she'd like him to meet her father, Edmund turns around and asks what he thinks is an old beggar loitering in the corridor to move along, not knowing it is his prospective FiL.
The episode of The Crown ends, we switch our tv from Netflix to Sky, (this is 830-9ish on a Saturday Night, Prime Time viewing in lockdown), and what is on BBC1? That very episode, a 35 year old repeat, two mins away from the scene I had described
I`m not a fan of costume dramas. So haven`t watched The Crown. Should I?
It’s well produced and acted.
Do Barbour jackets and Wellington boots count as costume drama?
Whether by accident or design the PR department of this production must be dining out on caviar every night. The script handling of Thatch and the Queen and Diana has generated acre upon acre of press debate and coverage.
There's a lot of absolute nonsense talked about 1986, and I write as a kid who was very disappointed England were knocked out at that time.
England were clearly second best on the day, and were unlikely to win the tournament anyway. We'd scraped through the group stage, losing to Portugal, and been lucky to get an easy draw with Paraguay in the first knock-out round. It wasn't a bad team, but was a work in progress that peaked and had its best chance in 1990 (we weren't the best team in the tournament then either but, like 2018, were a decent side who were in the mix with an outside chance).
All this "our name was good as on the cup, and we was robbed" stuff is rubbish looked at objectively. We were unlucky a handball wasn't spotted, but that's the limit of it and all teams get bad decisions now and then.
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
"Cheat" is such an ugly word. "Hero" is a bit more like it.
Quite right. He was a great man - an exceptional one - and the rules governing the little don't apply to them...
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
"Cheat" is such an ugly word. "Hero" is a bit more like it.
Quite right. He was a great man - an exceptional one - and the rules governing the little don't apply to them...
He only broke the rules in a specific and limited way...
That's a good line. Why wasn't he leader instead of Jeremy?
Because he didn't draw the short straw when the Labour left met in 2015 to decide which of them they'd put up for (presumed) ritual humiliation in that year's leadership election.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
Possibly a lie, possibly it was intended to keep it but things have changed (though as has been pointed out, they are likely to still suggest other manifesto commitments cannot be set aside even though things have changed). I think it's a promise worth keeping, but I was surprised it was even in the latest manifesto.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
Because HYUFD is wrong, without a pandemic blowing up our deficit we could have continued to afford this. We can't. It is a generosity we simply can not afford - if people wish to pay more for charity then they can do so voluntarily but the taxpayer has not got the finances to do so right now.
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
"Cheat" is such an ugly word. "Hero" is a bit more like it.
Quite right. He was a great man - an exceptional one - and the rules governing the little don't apply to them...
He only broke the rules in a specific and limited way...
Oh to have the optimism of a twitter account that posts "Sweden figures look like they are levelling off or even falling" every week for the last 2 months.
So relentlessly upbeat, never deflected by the same thing happening as the figures are recosed week after week after week.
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
For me Maradona IS the bigger news. It's a true and massive Event. The state of the public finances, whilst of great interest and importance, will be the same tomorrow and on Friday as today. Not so Diego. You only die once.
That's a good line. Why wasn't he leader instead of Jeremy?
It is a good line but personally if McDonnell thinks we're driving in the wrong direction then I for one am relieved.
I wasn't suggesting he was right - and in general I think there's a bit too much of pretending that because some things are being done in extremis that means the argument for them in normal times was made as well; though these particular examples are less of that mould - just that he's so much sharper than Corbyn it must have been frustrating at times. I'm sure they are good friends and allies, and Corbyn could reach people McDonnell couldn't, but it is painfully obvious who has the smarts and the political skills there.
When I was about 10 , BlackAdder II was my favourite comedy, to a ridiculous level of anorakness; I reckon I could probably still recite every word. I hadn't seen the first series so went and bought the video with my pocket money, and thought it was shit. Then BlackAdder the Third came on, I was super excited, and felt very let down. "Goes Forth" was better but none of them hold a candle to "II" for me.
Anyway, I digress. A couple of Saturday evenings ago we were watching an episode of The Crown Season One on Netflix, and I said to my missus that it reminded me of a scene from the first episode of BlackAdder II, where Bob/Kate says to Edmund she'd like him to meet her father, Edmund turns around and asks what he thinks is an old beggar loitering in the corridor to move along, not knowing it is his prospective FiL.
The episode of The Crown ends, we switch our tv from Netflix to Sky, (this is 830-9ish on a Saturday Night, Prime Time viewing in lockdown), and what is on BBC1? That very episode, a 35 year old repeat, two mins away from the scene I had described
I`m not a fan of costume dramas. So haven`t watched The Crown. Should I?
Maradona broke this seven year old's heart in 1986.
Never forgave him.
First time I started to realise that sometimes life wasn't fair. Couldn't believe that no action was taken after the game. And now we have var...
What wasn't fair? The better team won.
Even where a better team wins that doesn't mean the path to that win was definitely fair. A more popular party winning an election is fair, but if they cheated to do it (or maxmise their advantage) that would not be fair even though they were more popular.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
Oh to have the optimism of a twitter account that posts "Sweden figures look like they are levelling off or even falling" every week for the last 2 months.
So relentlessly upbeat, never deflected by the same thing happening as the figures are recosed week after week after week.
It appears the topic Sweden is awesome people are now pushing is that there so many false positives that Covid 19 is massively overstated and the government is hiding the false positive, despite the fact the government regularly publishes that figure.
That's a good line. Why wasn't he leader instead of Jeremy?
Well he tried in 2007 and failed, so it was someone else's turn from the Socialist Group to stand in future leadership election.
In 2010 it was Diane Abbott, in 2015 it was Jezza's turn.
In 2010 he stood as well, then pulled out and told people backing him to back Diane, to ensure a woman got into the final contest, which is pretty patronising and suggests some confusion among the awkward left who their candidate should be.
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
For me Maradona IS the bigger news. It's a true and massive Event. The state of the public finances, whilst of great interest and importance, will be the same tomorrow and on Friday as today. Not so Diego. You only die once.
Yes, today is a day for celebrating a great footballer, and have a deep, long belly laugh at Peter Shilton.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
It's a political no brainer when we are spending so much and still petrified of raising taxes. Not that it will make people feel better, but frankly it's lucky the whole pot was not raided.
Edit: And as that shows, if people try to make this Con vs Lab, Remainer vs Leaver, while there is a disparity, they should be wary of suggesting one side is clearly for it the other clearly against it.
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
I agree. It should be on the news but not the main item.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
I agree. It should be on the news but not the main item.
Classic public interest vs what the public is interested in.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
It's a political no brainer when we are spending so much and still petrified of raising taxes. Not that it will make people feel better, but frankly it's lucky the whole pot was not raided.
I was surprised to learn the G7 average was 0.35% and the Labour years average was 0.37%.
Knowing those facts this should be a first slice and the next step should be to bring it to 0.35% next year and commit to stay at the G7 average going forwards.
Strange - Maradona has died 15 years to the day George Best died
And basically due to the same thing...
Anybody who saw the recent documentary can only marvel he lasted this long. A shambling figure of pathos at the end.
Yes I watched that. It was very good. A "flawed" individual, as they say, but aren't we all. He was rather exploited, it seemed to me. Sad news anyway.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
Because HYUFD is wrong, without a pandemic blowing up our deficit we could have continued to afford this. We can't. It is a generosity we simply can not afford - if people wish to pay more for charity then they can do so voluntarily but the taxpayer has not got the finances to do so right now.
Look at the commentary here this afternoon, including the post I replied to. It's about how Foreign Aid is unpopular, a waste, all the fault of Cameron or the Coalition. And the idea that £4 billion is anything more than a rounding error in a total spend of £540 billion is for the birds. This is about a totem- a tiny totem for the UK, but worth a lot to people who are actually needy, and another sign of how seriously we should take Johnson's promises.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
Maradona was the greatest footballer of his generation, and in my adult life the second greatest ever (slightly behind Messi) IMHO. I'm a bit too young (!) to have seen Pele at his best. Best was great, but a bit more patchy. I'd probably put Beckenbauer third, though defenders are not so fashionable.
And as for the cheating goal - well, of course English players never cheat, or dive in the box when untouched to get a penalty? It's up to the referees to spot cheating attempts - they'll always exist, in all nationalities. Maradona's second goal was the best international goal I've seen.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
Bit of a shift in political thinking here. I thought the government had the right and obligation to implement things which were in the manifesto. Does this rule now only apply to things which were in the manifesto, and should have been there? Does this have implications for anything else which was in there?
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
Because HYUFD is wrong, without a pandemic blowing up our deficit we could have continued to afford this. We can't. It is a generosity we simply can not afford - if people wish to pay more for charity then they can do so voluntarily but the taxpayer has not got the finances to do so right now.
Look at the commentary here this afternoon, including the post I replied to. It's about how Foreign Aid is unpopular, a waste, all the fault of Cameron or the Coalition. And the idea that £4 billion is anything more than a rounding error in a total spend of £540 billion is for the birds. This is about a totem- a tiny totem for the UK, but worth a lot to people who are actually needy, and another sign of how seriously we should take Johnson's promises.
£4 billion is not a rounding error when we have a deficit every single penny we can save helps and billions certainly do.
If you think its such a rounding error then you should very easily come up with billions more than that you think you could slice elsewhere from spending in order to make up for this and to help eliminate the deficit.
FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
For me Maradona IS the bigger news. It's a true and massive Event. The state of the public finances, whilst of great interest and importance, will be the same tomorrow and on Friday as today. Not so Diego. You only die once.
Yes, today is a day for celebrating a great footballer, and have a deep, long belly laugh at Peter Shilton.
Shilts should not have been beaten to that ball even though it was outrageously handled by the cheating little tinker. Maradona was only five foot five.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
A British-Australian academic serving a 10-year sentence in Iran for espionage has been freed in exchange for three jailed Iranians, Iranian media say.
Don't know the case, but just shows that Iran imprisons westerners as hostages to extract concessions.
In our case I think they want us to pay them some money that they (and I think most reasonable observers) believe we owe them.
My father was a junior civil servant involved in the sale of the tanks (or rather the non sale) to Iran at the time. He often regales the events much to our embarrassment as he doesn't get that he is telling the story of a major cockup. In fairness to him I doubt he was at all responsible.
The cherry on the cake being the tanks were eventually finally sold to Iraq.
Are you sure? I didn't know that the Iraqis got Chieftains (or later variants thereof such as Khalid/Shir), except by capture of Iranian ones.
No not sure just repeating the story, although it wasn't just tanks, there were armoured vehicles also. Shame if not true. You feel if you are going to mess up you might as well do it properly.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
Because HYUFD is wrong, without a pandemic blowing up our deficit we could have continued to afford this. We can't. It is a generosity we simply can not afford - if people wish to pay more for charity then they can do so voluntarily but the taxpayer has not got the finances to do so right now.
Look at the commentary here this afternoon, including the post I replied to. It's about how Foreign Aid is unpopular, a waste, all the fault of Cameron or the Coalition. And the idea that £4 billion is anything more than a rounding error in a total spend of £540 billion is for the birds. This is about a totem- a tiny totem for the UK, but worth a lot to people who are actually needy, and another sign of how seriously we should take Johnson's promises.
£4 billion is not a rounding error when we have a deficit every single penny we can save helps and billions certainly do.
If you think its such a rounding error then you should very easily come up with billions more than that you think you could slice elsewhere from spending in order to make up for this and to help eliminate the deficit.
Go on. I'm not holding my breath.
It's not a spending cut, but: replace inheritance tax by channelling gifts and inheritance through the income tax system. That'll raise your £4bn twice over.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
Bit of a shift in political thinking here. I thought the government had the right and obligation to implement things which were in the manifesto. Does this rule now only apply to things which were in the manifesto, and should have been there? Does this have implications for anything else which was in there?
Those LibDems are some hard-hearted bastards, aren't they?
Strange - Maradona has died 15 years to the day George Best died
That is a poignant coincidence. Maradona 60. George did not quite make that. Great players of course - both in the GOAT conversation - but one is also struck by the names. I am anyway. Georgie Best, Diego Maradona. Hard to come up with a better pair of names than this for a pair of shooting star "bad boy" footballers. It's almost like once given their names they had to do what they did. A career in construction or retail was out of the question.
As a season ticket holder I watched George Best throughout his career at Old Trafford
I saw him once as a boy. Used to go to Hillsborough with my dad to see Sheff Wed and Man U visited with him in the team. League game. They won 3-1 and he scored 2 and made 1. An example of something that lived up to the hype.
When I was about 10 , BlackAdder II was my favourite comedy, to a ridiculous level of anorakness; I reckon I could probably still recite every word. I hadn't seen the first series so went and bought the video with my pocket money, and thought it was shit. Then BlackAdder the Third came on, I was super excited, and felt very let down. "Goes Forth" was better but none of them hold a candle to "II" for me.
Anyway, I digress. A couple of Saturday evenings ago we were watching an episode of The Crown Season One on Netflix, and I said to my missus that it reminded me of a scene from the first episode of BlackAdder II, where Bob/Kate says to Edmund she'd like him to meet her father, Edmund turns around and asks what he thinks is an old beggar loitering in the corridor to move along, not knowing it is his prospective FiL.
The episode of The Crown ends, we switch our tv from Netflix to Sky, (this is 830-9ish on a Saturday Night, Prime Time viewing in lockdown), and what is on BBC1? That very episode, a 35 year old repeat, two mins away from the scene I had described
Personally I rate the series in the following order
2 1 (thought it was better than given credit for -including you it seems!) 3 4 (it was just a bit too serious imo)
I'd go 2, 3, 1, 4. Did not like season 1 at all and it took a lot to persuade me to watch season 2, but then I was hooked. Found season 4 way to judgmental and preachy - all that I do not like about the direction 'comedy' has gone.
I have to vote for 3 because my sister in law is Sally Cheapside.
Why can't you believe it? People get exited by every weekend dip, and every Murder Tuesday/Wednesday. You'd think after the first 6 months they would find out about these "average" thingies....
But probably that is too posh or nerdy or something....
A British-Australian academic serving a 10-year sentence in Iran for espionage has been freed in exchange for three jailed Iranians, Iranian media say.
Don't know the case, but just shows that Iran imprisons westerners as hostages to extract concessions.
In our case I think they want us to pay them some money that they (and I think most reasonable observers) believe we owe them.
My father was a junior civil servant involved in the sale of the tanks (or rather the non sale) to Iran at the time. He often regales the events much to our embarrassment as he doesn't get that he is telling the story of a major cockup. In fairness to him I doubt he was at all responsible.
The cherry on the cake being the tanks were eventually finally sold to Iraq.
Are you sure? I didn't know that the Iraqis got Chieftains (or later variants thereof such as Khalid/Shir), except by capture of Iranian ones.
No not sure just repeating the story, although it wasn't just tanks, there were armoured vehicles also. Shame if not true. You feel if you are going to mess up you might as well do it properly.
Just checked and Iraq did have 75 Mk5P Chieftains which is the tank initially sold to Iran so it looks like my story is probably correct.
Could check with my Dad, but at 94 we have found that a lot of his stories no longer hold water - to put it mildly.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
In other news Oxford are gradually publishing their decisions on invitations to interview this year. Things are a bit tense around here at the moment....
There's a lot of absolute nonsense talked about 1986, and I write as a kid who was very disappointed England were knocked out at that time.
England were clearly second best on the day, and were unlikely to win the tournament anyway. We'd scraped through the group stage, losing to Portugal, and been lucky to get an easy draw with Paraguay in the first knock-out round. It wasn't a bad team, but was a work in progress that peaked and had its best chance in 1990 (we weren't the best team in the tournament then either but, like 2018, were a decent side who were in the mix with an outside chance).
All this "our name was good as on the cup, and we was robbed" stuff is rubbish looked at objectively. We were unlucky a handball wasn't spotted, but that's the limit of it and all teams get bad decisions now and then.
Yes, I'd go along with that.
I checked out the goal on YouTube and my previous comments about the officials stand. I would add that the referee is poorly positioned. The move developed slowly so he had no excuse for his failure to 'go deep' and run into the space towards the left-wing about at the corner of the penalty area. It was a very hot day and officials weren't so fit then. Even so, by just lazily trotting along behind the forwards he was poorly placed to cover any incident involving striker and goalkeeper, which is exactly what a decent referee would have been anticipating.
Since it was a pretty obvious handball I would still have expected him to pick it up and if he didn't it would probably due to the fact he was behind the play instead of close up to it and looking at an angle from the left-wing. If that explains his oversight, nothing excuses the linesman for his. He had a perfect angle, and a clear view.
It is noticeable that when the England players protested the referee kept looking at the linesman. He had rushed back to the halfway line, the normal position for a restart of play following a goal. This is customary for a linesman who wishes to demonstrate unobtrusively that he is happy with the goal. He had clearly failed to spot the handball, although he (correctly) saw that it couldn't be offside because the through ball was played by an England defender, Hodge. (It was terrible defending but that's another matter.)
In those days FIFA had a big problem selecting suitable officials for big games. I remember the refereeing caoch who taught me (round about that time in fact) once commented that if they wanted the best referees for the competition, half of them would be English. That was a fair comment then. It certainly wouldn't be true now but in those days FIFA felt obliged to pick officials to represent as many countries as possible. The three in charge of that game were from Tunisia, Bulgaria and Costa Rica. I don't think it's insulting anybody to suggest that the level of experience they would have had would be unlikely to exceed what I gathered from about five seasons doing games on Hackney Marshes, and the lower reaches of semi-professional football on a Saturday.
Maradona cheated, but I'm sure he was amazed not to be penalised, and when he wasn't, what we he supposed to do? I'm glad he fessed up eventually. I don't recall FIFA or the officials in question ever doing likewise.
RIP Diego. You got away with one, but ego te absolvo.
A British-Australian academic serving a 10-year sentence in Iran for espionage has been freed in exchange for three jailed Iranians, Iranian media say.
Don't know the case, but just shows that Iran imprisons westerners as hostages to extract concessions.
In our case I think they want us to pay them some money that they (and I think most reasonable observers) believe we owe them.
My father was a junior civil servant involved in the sale of the tanks (or rather the non sale) to Iran at the time. He often regales the events much to our embarrassment as he doesn't get that he is telling the story of a major cockup. In fairness to him I doubt he was at all responsible.
The cherry on the cake being the tanks were eventually finally sold to Iraq.
Are you sure? I didn't know that the Iraqis got Chieftains (or later variants thereof such as Khalid/Shir), except by capture of Iranian ones.
No not sure just repeating the story, although it wasn't just tanks, there were armoured vehicles also. Shame if not true. You feel if you are going to mess up you might as well do it properly.
The reason he may have been thinking of it as a bit of a triumph was that when the sale of new tanks to Iram fell through, they ended up being bought by the British Army. Which regarded the Challenger as a very nice upgrade on the Chieftain.
I can't believe people got excited by yesterday's figures.
twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1331654940096409601
Guessing something iffy went on with the test / recording yesterday. We know there are daily variations etc, but that was so dramatic and came out really late. Perhaps only used Excel 2017, rather than Excel COVID Pro.
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happen
Your new get out of jail card is "It shouldn't have been in the manifesto" ??
Really?
After so many posts from you quoting bits and pieces of the manifesto at us to justify this or that.
Had we not had to spend a fortune on furlough and avoided Covid then it may still have been affordable, circumstances change and given it was deeply unpopular anyway to keep it at that level no political cost to the cut either
When I was about 10 , BlackAdder II was my favourite comedy, to a ridiculous level of anorakness; I reckon I could probably still recite every word. I hadn't seen the first series so went and bought the video with my pocket money, and thought it was shit. Then BlackAdder the Third came on, I was super excited, and felt very let down. "Goes Forth" was better but none of them hold a candle to "II" for me.
Anyway, I digress. A couple of Saturday evenings ago we were watching an episode of The Crown Season One on Netflix, and I said to my missus that it reminded me of a scene from the first episode of BlackAdder II, where Bob/Kate says to Edmund she'd like him to meet her father, Edmund turns around and asks what he thinks is an old beggar loitering in the corridor to move along, not knowing it is his prospective FiL.
The episode of The Crown ends, we switch our tv from Netflix to Sky, (this is 830-9ish on a Saturday Night, Prime Time viewing in lockdown), and what is on BBC1? That very episode, a 35 year old repeat, two mins away from the scene I had described
Personally I rate the series in the following order
2 1 (thought it was better than given credit for -including you it seems!) 3 4 (it was just a bit too serious imo)
I'd go 2, 3, 1, 4. Did not like season 1 at all and it took a lot to persuade me to watch season 2, but then I was hooked. Found season 4 way to judgmental and preachy - all that I do not like about the direction 'comedy' has gone.
2, 3, 4, 1. I recently rewatched 1 to give it a chance, but bottom line is that it just is not very funny. It has some funny moments, but on the whole it is just...nothing. Knowing it would have been funny and they retooled the main character only makes it worse.
When I was about 10 , BlackAdder II was my favourite comedy, to a ridiculous level of anorakness; I reckon I could probably still recite every word. I hadn't seen the first series so went and bought the video with my pocket money, and thought it was shit. Then BlackAdder the Third came on, I was super excited, and felt very let down. "Goes Forth" was better but none of them hold a candle to "II" for me.
Anyway, I digress. A couple of Saturday evenings ago we were watching an episode of The Crown Season One on Netflix, and I said to my missus that it reminded me of a scene from the first episode of BlackAdder II, where Bob/Kate says to Edmund she'd like him to meet her father, Edmund turns around and asks what he thinks is an old beggar loitering in the corridor to move along, not knowing it is his prospective FiL.
The episode of The Crown ends, we switch our tv from Netflix to Sky, (this is 830-9ish on a Saturday Night, Prime Time viewing in lockdown), and what is on BBC1? That very episode, a 35 year old repeat, two mins away from the scene I had described
Personally I rate the series in the following order
2 1 (thought it was better than given credit for -including you it seems!) 3 4 (it was just a bit too serious imo)
I'd go 2, 3, 1, 4. Did not like season 1 at all and it took a lot to persuade me to watch season 2, but then I was hooked. Found season 4 way to judgmental and preachy - all that I do not like about the direction 'comedy' has gone.
I have to vote for 3 because my sister in law is Sally Cheapside.
"Oh shut your face, you pregnant junky fag-hag!"
Well I'm glad I remember the scene otherwise I might take offence.
Seems like it would be pretty coincidental to have been home to Jesus.
He’s done quite a lot of other archaeology in the meanwhile, and not just in Nazareth. He hasn’t spent fourteen years staring at a hole in the ground pondering whether it fits Luke’s account of Jesus’ childhood.
Not a single other comparable economy is honouring the international 0.7% commitment right now so I fail to see why we should either. If we did in the future as part of getting other economies to do the same then that would raise more money but right now us continuing to do so unilaterally is as insane as advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament during the Cold War.
I'd be delighted to restore the 0.7% of GDP commitment to foreign aid, without other economies doing so too, if anyone can explain how the UK can afford to do that this year without a budget deficit. If anyone has any good ideas how to afford that then I'm all ears.
I don't see an issue, necessarily, with maintaining it even now, nor do I think a failure of others to reach that level in itself means we should do the same or that it is even ok.
However, it does place into context how outraged we should be, and I think when people treat something most others don't do either as beyond the pale, it is a hard sell to the public. Particularly when there is not a magic line wherein you are moral at 0.7% but not at, say, 0.6%.
It's still possible, maybe even reasonable, to criticise based on priorities and moralities, but it really feels more like one of those decisions to be analysed with detachment rather than some great moral outrage.
I agree completely.
And with cold detachment our budget deficit means that spending for the sake of spending is totally unaffordable.
Well, in 2015 the deficit was coming down and the 0.7% for aid was being met, until the Tories got a majority and they got all financially incontinent.
Seems like it would be pretty coincidental to have been home to Jesus.
He’s done quite a lot of other archaeology in the meanwhile, and not just in Nazareth. He hasn’t spent fourteen years staring at a hole in the ground pondering whether it fits Luke’s account of Jesus’ childhood.
Comments
34 years ago, and I never tire of seeing it. Shilton's face! What a picture. Hahahahaha
O/T - I have been off the site so don't know if this has been seen/discussed?
"If 60% of the public told you to jump off a cliff, would you do that?"
And with cold detachment our budget deficit means that spending for the sake of spending is totally unaffordable.
Not a promise Labour kept.
And I'm not sure how paying David Milliband millions aids mothers dying in childbirth.
He can certainly RIP as far as I'm concerned. Not sure I would be so generous to the officials in question.
[Incidentally it is hard to say who was more at fault, the referee or the linesman. If they were in their normal positions the referee would be looking at Maradonas back and the linesman has the side-on view. It is possible for one or the other to be unsighted, but not both, which is why the ref normally runs a diagonal away from his two linesmen. What may have happened is that the ref was unsighted and the linesman didn't have the bottle to make a big call, but one way or another it was a dreadful display by the officials. I never really blamed Maradona.]
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1331644466445361156?s=20
The Iraqis bought Soviet equipment (mostly) in that period.
It helped shape my enjoyment of future sporting successes for my teams.
There's a lot of absolute nonsense talked about 1986, and I write as a kid who was very disappointed England were knocked out at that time.
England were clearly second best on the day, and were unlikely to win the tournament anyway. We'd scraped through the group stage, losing to Portugal, and been lucky to get an easy draw with Paraguay in the first knock-out round. It wasn't a bad team, but was a work in progress that peaked and had its best chance in 1990 (we weren't the best team in the tournament then either but, like 2018, were a decent side who were in the mix with an outside chance).
All this "our name was good as on the cup, and we was robbed" stuff is rubbish looked at objectively. We were unlucky a handball wasn't spotted, but that's the limit of it and all teams get bad decisions now and then.
So relentlessly upbeat, never deflected by the same thing happening as the figures are recosed week after week after week.
In 2010 it was Diane Abbott, in 2015 it was Jezza's turn.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1331650556566368258?s=20
That's how I coped.
Edit: And as that shows, if people try to make this Con vs Lab, Remainer vs Leaver, while there is a disparity, they should be wary of suggesting one side is clearly for it the other clearly against it.
Knowing those facts this should be a first slice and the next step should be to bring it to 0.35% next year and commit to stay at the G7 average going forwards.
And the idea that £4 billion is anything more than a rounding error in a total spend of £540 billion is for the birds.
This is about a totem- a tiny totem for the UK, but worth a lot to people who are actually needy, and another sign of how seriously we should take Johnson's promises.
So much for Sturgeon's progressive utopia!!
The only group opposed are 18 to 24s but only by 5%
And as for the cheating goal - well, of course English players never cheat, or dive in the box when untouched to get a penalty? It's up to the referees to spot cheating attempts - they'll always exist, in all nationalities. Maradona's second goal was the best international goal I've seen.
If you think its such a rounding error then you should very easily come up with billions more than that you think you could slice elsewhere from spending in order to make up for this and to help eliminate the deficit.
Go on. I'm not holding my breath.
There is a "strong case to be made" that a house excavated in Nazareth, Israel, was the childhood home of Jesus, according to an archaeologist.
Professor Ken Dark, from the University of Reading, has spent 14 years studying the remains of the 1st century dwelling beneath a modern-day convent.
He said the ruins were first suggested as Jesus, Mary and Joseph's home in the 19th-century.
However, the idea was dismissed by archaeologists in the 1930s.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-55061233
Seems like it would be pretty coincidental to have been home to Jesus.
Wales overtakes England in 7-day reported cases per 100,000.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1331654940096409601
replace inheritance tax by channelling gifts and inheritance through the income tax system.
That'll raise your £4bn twice over.
But probably that is too posh or nerdy or something....
Could check with my Dad, but at 94 we have found that a lot of his stories no longer hold water - to put it mildly.
Really?
After so many posts from you quoting bits and pieces of the manifesto at us to justify this or that.
I checked out the goal on YouTube and my previous comments about the officials stand. I would add that the referee is poorly positioned. The move developed slowly so he had no excuse for his failure to 'go deep' and run into the space towards the left-wing about at the corner of the penalty area. It was a very hot day and officials weren't so fit then. Even so, by just lazily trotting along behind the forwards he was poorly placed to cover any incident involving striker and goalkeeper, which is exactly what a decent referee would have been anticipating.
Since it was a pretty obvious handball I would still have expected him to pick it up and if he didn't it would probably due to the fact he was behind the play instead of close up to it and looking at an angle from the left-wing. If that explains his oversight, nothing excuses the linesman for his. He had a perfect angle, and a clear view.
It is noticeable that when the England players protested the referee kept looking at the linesman. He had rushed back to the halfway line, the normal position for a restart of play following a goal. This is customary for a linesman who wishes to demonstrate unobtrusively that he is happy with the goal. He had clearly failed to spot the handball, although he (correctly) saw that it couldn't be offside because the through ball was played by an England defender, Hodge. (It was terrible defending but that's another matter.)
In those days FIFA had a big problem selecting suitable officials for big games. I remember the refereeing caoch who taught me (round about that time in fact) once commented that if they wanted the best referees for the competition, half of them would be English. That was a fair comment then. It certainly wouldn't be true now but in those days FIFA felt obliged to pick officials to represent as many countries as possible. The three in charge of that game were from Tunisia, Bulgaria and Costa Rica. I don't think it's insulting anybody to suggest that the level of experience they would have had would be unlikely to exceed what I gathered from about five seasons doing games on Hackney Marshes, and the lower reaches of semi-professional football on a Saturday.
Maradona cheated, but I'm sure he was amazed not to be penalised, and when he wasn't, what we he supposed to do? I'm glad he fessed up eventually. I don't recall FIFA or the officials in question ever doing likewise.
RIP Diego. You got away with one, but ego te absolvo.
Sounds like Excel playing up again today...
https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1331646744908722179?s=20
Oh.