They must push and push this. I know the Lord Advocate slightly and had dealings with him as Dean. I don't think that he is a great advocate but that is because he is genuinely clever and sees the complications in everything. I have little doubt that his advice not to fight the JR by Salmond was very carefully judged and the strong suspicion that it was Sturgeon's interference that made it indefensible. He has a profound sense of professional responsibility and he will not hint that his client (the Scottish government) is the problem with the production of his advice.
Next up will be trying to work out what the hell was going on in Crown Office which resulted in the malicious prosecution of the administrators of Rangers and one of their directors. That is going to cost the Scottish government the thick end of £20m. The main culprit for that, however, is now a Judge.
I haven't been following it in detail (the Salmond not Sevco one). But as I recall there were two issues - (a) ongoing court cases and (b) personal confidentiality of the complainants in a sexual assault prosecution (this last very much adduced in media coverage). How do those operate in the current situation, please?
Salmond's JR was not focused on the merits of the inquiry against him. It was focused on the lack of due process and the failure to follow the rules (as all JRs are). The conclusion of the Lord Advocate was that what had happened was not defensible, that the process had not complied with the rules. There are several possible reasons for that, particularly in the case of a former First Minister, but the most likely is that there was documented interference in the process at some point (just as with Corbyn and the anti-Semites). Given the level at which this was being dealt with that really puts Nicola in the frame.
Don't go booking that spring get away just yet....
The OBR assumes, presumably with good reason given how closely it works with the Treasury, widespread deployment of a vaccine by the middle of 2021, not by the Spring, with a high to medium level of restrictions until then.
What is it with meat processing plants and Covid? The latest is 100 positives in a plant in Bodmin.
Cold, noisy so lots of shouting, and people standing close to one another.
They insist on you coming in, ill or not, lots of migrants who don't speak English and desperately need the money, it's a bit macho, and it's behind the scenes of something most people don't want to see - so bad management and employee welfare is rife.
They must push and push this. I know the Lord Advocate slightly and had dealings with him as Dean. I don't think that he is a great advocate but that is because he is genuinely clever and sees the complications in everything. I have little doubt that his advice not to fight the JR by Salmond was very carefully judged and the strong suspicion that it was Sturgeon's interference that made it indefensible. He has a profound sense of professional responsibility and he will not hint that his client (the Scottish government) is the problem with the production of his advice.
Next up will be trying to work out what the hell was going on in Crown Office which resulted in the malicious prosecution of the administrators of Rangers and one of their directors. That is going to cost the Scottish government the thick end of £20m. The main culprit for that, however, is now a Judge.
I haven't been following it in detail (the Salmond not Sevco one). But as I recall there were two issues - (a) ongoing court cases and (b) personal confidentiality of the complainants in a sexual assault prosecution (this last very much adduced in media coverage). How do those operate in the current situation, please?
Salmond's JR was not focused on the merits of the inquiry against him. It was focused on the lack of due process and the failure to follow the rules (as all JRs are). The conclusion of the Lord Advocate was that what had happened was not defensible, that the process had not complied with the rules. There are several possible reasons for that, particularly in the case of a former First Minister, but the most likely is that there was documented interference in the process at some point (just as with Corbyn and the anti-Semites). Given the level at which this was being dealt with that really puts Nicola in the frame.
What is it with meat processing plants and Covid? The latest is 100 positives in a plant in Bodmin.
Cold, noisy so lots of shouting, and people standing close to one another.
They insist on you coming in, ill or not, lots of migrants who don't speak English and desperately need the money, it's a bit macho, and it's behind the scenes of something most people don't want to see - so bad management and employee welfare is rife.
But this particular vector is true elsewhere, where non-English speaking migrant labour don't make up such a large percentage of the workforce e.g. South Dakota.
alance of Power @BalancePowerUK · 57m POLL: Do you think the Govt are right or wrong to reduce the amount spent on overseas aid?
Labour Voters: Right: 44% Wrong: 37%
Lib Dem Voters: Right: 49% Wrong: 35%
As usual, I'd be in the minority but it's just as well we have a Government that doesn't obsess on polls or focus groups or trying to guess where the "majority" opinion is at any point.
It's less a question of whether we could retain the 0.7% as much as whether we should. I wonder what message it sends at the same time we are claiming, post EU, to be global in outlook and open to all. It doesn't look very global and simply trying to hide behind what countries are and aren't doing doesn't wash.
However, I'm in a minority on this - I would like an unequivocal commitment to return the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GDP in 2022-23. There's a debate to be had about where and how it should be spent and that should be had. I don't recall there being a huge debate about the rationale for increased defence spending - some on here would have you believe Putin's armoured divisions are a threat - I'm pretty sure they aren't two hours from the Rhine and the question then becomes whether Putin or anyone else will risk a third world war over Tallinn or Riga.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
If a charity is paying someone £400k pa in what sense can it reasonably be called a charity?
To make matters worse, remember that under this ghastly charity tax relief system each pound donated is inflated by the donor`s marginal rate of tax thus depriving the exchequer of much needed money.
400k a year to give money away and seemingly with little effect.
There are some far smaller scale charities where it's clear the comparatively tiny money is having an effect. The big charities probably do some good, but they're often handing the money to the causes of the problems.
The twenty quid you feel good about because it'll help an undernourished child is somewhat likely to finish up buying a small part of a bottle of wildly expensive Champagne for someone you'd hate who's on a holiday in Switzerland whilst his employees brutalise the people you wanted to help in the first place.
I've changed to (almost) only giving to charities where I can actually see the accounts and the results.
Edit: This seems very bleak, and I didn't quite mean that. Many people in the charitable sector do great work - big and small charities.
I only give to small charities.
Some are industries, particularly those like Macmillan, Cancer Research, British Heart Foundation, RSPCA and who utterly dominate and soak up a lot of attention and money.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
So you think people who work for a charity should all be unpaid? Or is there an ‘acceptable’ level of pay? I presume you are happy for the companies who run track and trace for the U.K. government to pay their bosses millions but charities, however successful those charities may be, cannot? Really that just seems to me to be an absurd argument.
How many nurses and doctors could we pay for with the millions we are bunging to private sector bosses? So, to be honest it still feels like a very selective anti charity, anti Milliband view to me.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
I don't think laying the ground is the Boris way. He'll just do it, spout how fine and dandy things are with some windy rhetoric and then hope everything moves on and it's all forgotten by the weekend.
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.
True David and there are lots of areas of expenditure which were not guaranteed in their manifesto yet they have chosen to cut one which was guaranteed. If you bothered to read the exchange you would see that my point was that breaking the manifesto seems a perfectly reasonable reason to resign.
I appreciate that some Tories believe that they can say whatever they like to get elected and then do what they like once they are. But some have a different moral compass. There is nothing wrong with standing by your commitments. To suggest it is ‘madness’ seems absurd to me.
I am not saying its madness. I am just suggesting it is understandable in the circumstances that have arisen when we have suffered a massive economic blow. As I have said early in the thread I personally would have no problem, indeed would support, spending our foreign aid budget on immunising parts of the world who can't afford to do it themselves. I hope the government commit to that once the Oxford vaccination is approved.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
If a charity is paying someone £400k pa in what sense can it reasonably be called a charity?
To make matters worse, remember that under this ghastly charity tax relief system each pound donated is inflated by the donor`s marginal rate of tax thus depriving the exchequer of much needed money.
400k a year to give money away and seemingly with little effect.
There are some far smaller scale charities where it's clear the comparatively tiny money is having an effect. The big charities probably do some good, but they're often handing the money to the causes of the problems.
The twenty quid you feel good about because it'll help an undernourished child is somewhat likely to finish up buying a small part of a bottle of wildly expensive Champagne for someone you'd hate who's on a holiday in Switzerland whilst his employees brutalise the people you wanted to help in the first place.
I've changed to (almost) only giving to charities where I can actually see the accounts and the results.
Edit: This seems very bleak, and I didn't quite mean that. Many people in the charitable sector do great work - big and small charities.
Who goes on holiday to Switzerland (apart from skiers - if that's what you mean fair point).
It's a spectacular place. Skiing great, but there's more and for the more discerning. However I didn't mean that - I meant that all sorts of not-so-nice people find themselves there. Allegedly for health reasons or holidays - probably actually for banking reasons and just spending the money.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
If a charity is paying someone £400k pa in what sense can it reasonably be called a charity?
To make matters worse, remember that under this ghastly charity tax relief system each pound donated is inflated by the donor`s marginal rate of tax thus depriving the exchequer of much needed money.
400k a year to give money away and seemingly with little effect.
There are some far smaller scale charities where it's clear the comparatively tiny money is having an effect. The big charities probably do some good, but they're often handing the money to the causes of the problems.
The twenty quid you feel good about because it'll help an undernourished child is somewhat likely to finish up buying a small part of a bottle of wildly expensive Champagne for someone you'd hate who's on a holiday in Switzerland whilst his employees brutalise the people you wanted to help in the first place.
I've changed to (almost) only giving to charities where I can actually see the accounts and the results.
Edit: This seems very bleak, and I didn't quite mean that. Many people in the charitable sector do great work - big and small charities.
I only give to charities with no paid staff or, even better, direct to the needy. Homeless people No 1 for me - so they can buy booze and drugs - good on them.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
I don't think laying the ground is the Boris way. He'll just do it, spout how fine and dandy things are with some windy rhetoric and then hope everything moves on and it's all forgotten by the weekend.
Yep, he never looks further ahead than the immediate crisis. Sometimes not even that far ahead.
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.
It takes innumeracy to a whole new level, it really does.
No, this is not innumeracy. This is blatant dishonesty. It is a Trumpian attempt to ignore the fact their whole schools policy has been a complete failure and to stubbornly cling to an impossible outcome.
This man is a disgrace to the country, the House of Commons and even what is left of the Tories. He is utter scum.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
If we end up with No Deal, it will probably be by accident. I wouldn't rule out that possibility but expect we will get some sort of deal, however shabby and unsatisfactory, and of course far inferior to what we once had.
The political cost will indeed be high but how many will realise it? How many will buy the fiction that it's all the EU's fault? How many will really care?
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.
It takes innumeracy to a whole new level, it really does.
No, this is not innumeracy. This is blatant dishonesty. It is a Trumpian attempt to ignore the fact their whole schools policy has been a complete failure and to stubbornly cling to an impossible outcome.
This man is a disgrace to the country, the House of Commons and even what is left of the Tories. He is utter scum.
Point of order....it isn't 23% off isolating with COVID. That is the total number who were absent last week, not just COVID. Government figures say its ~10% off who have been asked to isolate. The 0.2% comes from those off who have tested positive, so proper serious spinnage from the minister (if that is what he said).
We've already been "advised" nowhere will be in Tier 1 though I suspect the usual suspects among the epidemiologists, statisticians and the like will tell us, as cases are falling, we can relax everything.
I suspect London will be in Tier 2 - my brother thinks Kent will be in Tier 2 but I don't - I think it will be in Tier 3. Obviously, whatever the Tier, I will be able to go back to the betting shop and join the crowds by the FOBTs - that can only end well.
Needless to say, the political pleading from the Conservative backbenches is in evidence:
I'm not taking too much notice of Brexit right now.
At this stage we're into well choreographed panto. It will be like that right up to the minute it's signed - and might even get louder.
State aid (the big sticking point of 2 months ago) has now largely been solved (that used to be huge) and we're now into governance and regression clauses, and a final haggle on fish quotas - plus some weird articles on Irish meat exports. I can't really see any of that breaking it. Indeed, on fish the EU were asking for a review in 10 years which suggests they've agreed to accept something fairly unplatable to them now and are haggling to reopen it in future.
I will do something old-fashioned when a Deal is finally announced: I will read it in full first before commenting on it.
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.
It takes innumeracy to a whole new level, it really does.
0.2% are actually sick, but if each case knocks out a bubble of 30 - 300?
Not quite a lie, but thunderously misleading?
Par for the course, really.
As reported, it’s a lie. Because he doesn’t say ‘only 0.2% are isolating because they have tested positive.’ He just says ‘only 0.2% are isolating’ which is clearly not true. Moreover, there is no way he could have got that figure without a level of stupidity that would embarrass Chauncey Gardiner.
He may of course have been misquoted, but given it was being used to justify a wholly unjustifiable and arguably illegal action, that seems unlikely.
Bearing in mind he’s also one of the idiots who buggered up exam reform and a friend of Dominic Cummings, I’m sticking with ‘dishonest.’
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.
It takes innumeracy to a whole new level, it really does.
No, this is not innumeracy. This is blatant dishonesty. It is a Trumpian attempt to ignore the fact their whole schools policy has been a complete failure and to stubbornly cling to an impossible outcome.
This man is a disgrace to the country, the House of Commons and even what is left of the Tories. He is utter scum.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
Not even that. For January not to be a clustershambles, there's going to have to be a significant not-an-extension-no-siree preparation period. That is going to need a helluva lot of reassurance of the right wing of the Conservative party.
Remind me, what have the government been up to recently?
Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
Maradona isn't even the greatest Argentinian footballer of all time. There was a telling debate on R5 about this recently with contenders for Maradona, Pele, Messi and Ronaldo. When they had to vote for someone other than their own player everyone chose Messi. And rightly so.
I think technically Messi too. He really does look like he was born with a ball stuck to his foot. But Maradona was somehow greater for me. His Napoli reign down in the poor south of Italy plus dragging his national team to a World Cup win. Just his whole narrative. It's bigger. I make him the football goat. Would have said that yesterday too. It's not just cos he's died today.
I thought Maradona's goal against belgium in 86 was better than his 2nd against england. Didnt cover so much ground but thought his control was neater and the finish more elegant.
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.
True David and there are lots of areas of expenditure which were not guaranteed in their manifesto yet they have chosen to cut one which was guaranteed. If you bothered to read the exchange you would see that my point was that breaking the manifesto seems a perfectly reasonable reason to resign.
I appreciate that some Tories believe that they can say whatever they like to get elected and then do what they like once they are. But some have a different moral compass. There is nothing wrong with standing by your commitments. To suggest it is ‘madness’ seems absurd to me.
I am not saying its madness. I am just suggesting it is understandable in the circumstances that have arisen when we have suffered a massive economic blow. As I have said early in the thread I personally would have no problem, indeed would support, spending our foreign aid budget on immunising parts of the world who can't afford to do it themselves. I hope the government commit to that once the Oxford vaccination is approved.
Fair point but there is an important point of principle which the Tories seem to have lost. You need to think really hard before you break manifesto comments. They did not need to ring fence overseas aid (in fact I have no idea why they did). But they did. This is exactly what Clegg got slaughtered for and remember he lost the general election and had to become the junior partner in a coalition.
It demonstrates an arrogance which may well come back to bite them in the end.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
If we end up with No Deal, it will probably be by accident. I wouldn't rule out that possibility but expect we will get some sort of deal, however shabby and unsatisfactory, and of course far inferior to what we once had.
The political cost will indeed be high but how many will realise it? How many will buy the fiction that it's all the EU's fault? How many will really care?
If it doesn't affect people's everyday lives very much, we will move on.
However, the Remain/Rejoin constituency is easily big enough for it to influence Labour/LDs politics for years to come so I expect Starmer will have to offer something meaningfully "closer" in his manifesto at the next election.
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.
It takes innumeracy to a whole new level, it really does.
No, this is not innumeracy. This is blatant dishonesty. It is a Trumpian attempt to ignore the fact their whole schools policy has been a complete failure and to stubbornly cling to an impossible outcome.
This man is a disgrace to the country, the House of Commons and even what is left of the Tories. He is utter scum.
Point of order....it isn't 23% off isolating with COVID. That is the total number who were absent last week, not just COVID. Government figures say its ~10% off who have been asked to isolate. The 0.2% comes from those off who have tested positive, so proper serious spinnage from the minister (if that is what he said).
And the government are talking bullshit.
In the average year, you would expect around 3-5% off at any one time. But actually, sickness absence is lower this year, on account of the better hygiene systems and bubbling. So you could make that 1-2%.
So even on the most generous assumption, the government figure is out by half.
But even that does not in any way excuse Gibb. His claim is so ludicrous it even beats Cummings’ claim about his eye test.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
Not even that. For January not to be a clustershambles, there's going to have to be a significant not-an-extension-no-siree preparation period. That is going to need a helluva lot of reassurance of the right wing of the Conservative party.
Remind me, what have the government been up to recently?
Thought you were talking about schools again for a minute.
I'm not taking too much notice of Brexit right now.
At this stage we're into well choreographed panto. It will be like that right up to the minute it's signed - and might even get louder.
State aid (the big sticking point of 2 months ago) has now largely been solved (that used to be huge) and we're now into governance and regression clauses, and a final haggle on fish quotas - plus some weird articles on Irish meat exports. I can't really see any of that breaking it. Indeed, on fish the EU were asking for a review in 10 years which suggests they've agreed to accept something fairly unplatable to them now and are haggling to reopen it in future.
I will do something old-fashioned when a Deal is finally announced: I will read it in full first before commenting on it.
I expect I'll be in a small minority.
Are you thus some huge matronly figure in a Dalek costume drifting happily over the landscape and muttering 'don't exterminate'?
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;
Craig.
Joubert.
Whohe? Never heard of him.
Rugby ref - presumably made a mistake in a Scotland game...
Not quite. Napoleon marching on Moscow was a mistake as was the Gallipoli campaign. This was just inexplicable.
These 'mistakes' may just have been good choices that finished up being unlucky.
I think perhaps Napoleon's misadventure was a mistake - you'd have not given him a good chance ahead of time. The understanding of army logistics was though almost non-existent - crusades and Ghengis Khan.
Gallipoli though really should have succeeded. Awful planning, awful subsequent tactics, and a total failure to recognise when things had gone irretrievably wrong.
So you are saying that they are more justifiable than Jubert? Fair enough.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
Not even that. For January not to be a clustershambles, there's going to have to be a significant not-an-extension-no-siree preparation period. That is going to need a helluva lot of reassurance of the right wing of the Conservative party.
Remind me, what have the government been up to recently?
An "implementation period" or whatever it might be called would obviously be sensible, but is it seriously on the cards? Haven't seen anything said about it.
I'm not taking too much notice of Brexit right now.
At this stage we're into well choreographed panto. It will be like that right up to the minute it's signed - and might even get louder.
State aid (the big sticking point of 2 months ago) has now largely been solved (that used to be huge) and we're now into governance and regression clauses, and a final haggle on fish quotas - plus some weird articles on Irish meat exports. I can't really see any of that breaking it. Indeed, on fish the EU were asking for a review in 10 years which suggests they've agreed to accept something fairly unplatable to them now and are haggling to reopen it in future.
I will do something old-fashioned when a Deal is finally announced: I will read it in full first before commenting on it.
I expect I'll be in a small minority.
I agree with all of that CR, BUT it is having a big impact now to exporters and importers who have absolutely on idea what to do.
It is fine for the Govt to put out all these ads saying be prepared, but how?
I give you 2 examples. As I type this a guy on C4 news wants to export fryers. He has the orders but has no idea about paperwork, fees, etc so is in limbo. Pharmaceutical companies have prepared as much as possible, but are still waiting for final instructions from the Govt as to procedures. In NI there are currently 2 conflicting requirements regarding drug safety including labelling. There are lead times involved and not enough time.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
I don't think laying the ground is the Boris way. He'll just do it, spout how fine and dandy things are with some windy rhetoric and then hope everything moves on and it's all forgotten by the weekend.
Yep, he never looks further ahead than the immediate crisis. Sometimes not even that far ahead.
In fairness that sort of tactical opportunism has done him little harm to date. There will be a deal and he will do his best to sell it. All bar those who spend their days howling at the moon, leavers and remainers alike, will sigh with relief.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
I don't think laying the ground is the Boris way. He'll just do it, spout how fine and dandy things are with some windy rhetoric and then hope everything moves on and it's all forgotten by the weekend.
Yep, he never looks further ahead than the immediate crisis. Sometimes not even that far ahead.
In fairness that sort of tactical opportunism has done him little harm to date. There will be a deal and he will do his best to sell it. All bar those who spend their days howling at the moon, leavers and remainers alike, will sigh with relief.
Tactical opportunism is an excellent strategy in electioneering and seduction.
It's a terrible strategy in government and marriage.
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.
If we end up with No Deal, it will probably be by accident. I wouldn't rule out that possibility but expect we will get some sort of deal, however shabby and unsatisfactory, and of course far inferior to what we once had.
The political cost will indeed be high but how many will realise it? How many will buy the fiction that it's all the EU's fault? How many will really care?
If it doesn't affect people's everyday lives very much, we will move on.
However, the Remain/Rejoin constituency is easily big enough for it to influence Labour/LDs politics for years to come so I expect Starmer will have to offer something meaningfully "closer" in his manifesto at the next election.
Can't disagree, but if you can peer through the mist beyond the next year or so, you're a better man than me.
alance of Power @BalancePowerUK · 57m POLL: Do you think the Govt are right or wrong to reduce the amount spent on overseas aid?
Labour Voters: Right: 44% Wrong: 37%
Lib Dem Voters: Right: 49% Wrong: 35%
As usual, I'd be in the minority but it's just as well we have a Government that doesn't obsess on polls or focus groups or trying to guess where the "majority" opinion is at any point.
It's less a question of whether we could retain the 0.7% as much as whether we should. I wonder what message it sends at the same time we are claiming, post EU, to be global in outlook and open to all. It doesn't look very global and simply trying to hide behind what countries are and aren't doing doesn't wash.
However, I'm in a minority on this - I would like an unequivocal commitment to return the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GDP in 2022-23. There's a debate to be had about where and how it should be spent and that should be had. I don't recall there being a huge debate about the rationale for increased defence spending - some on here would have you believe Putin's armoured divisions are a threat - I'm pretty sure they aren't two hours from the Rhine and the question then becomes whether Putin or anyone else will risk a third world war over Tallinn or Riga.
I am a great advocate of international aid. Correctly applied it is incredibly valuable both to the global community and to the U.K.
But the 0.7% target is utter bullcrap.
What we should spend depends on (a) how much we can afford and (b) can it be spent effectively. Some arbitrary percentage is damaging to good governance, creates perverse incentives and allows politicians to abdicate responsibility for their decision
I'm not taking too much notice of Brexit right now.
At this stage we're into well choreographed panto. It will be like that right up to the minute it's signed - and might even get louder.
State aid (the big sticking point of 2 months ago) has now largely been solved (that used to be huge) and we're now into governance and regression clauses, and a final haggle on fish quotas - plus some weird articles on Irish meat exports. I can't really see any of that breaking it. Indeed, on fish the EU were asking for a review in 10 years which suggests they've agreed to accept something fairly unplatable to them now and are haggling to reopen it in future.
I will do something old-fashioned when a Deal is finally announced: I will read it in full first before commenting on it.
I expect I'll be in a small minority.
Well that's because such an approach is ridiculous. It will of course be either an inevitable complete cave in to the mighty and wonderful of EU or a deep betrayal of the wishes of the great British public according to taste. Reading will be completely superfluous.
alance of Power @BalancePowerUK · 57m POLL: Do you think the Govt are right or wrong to reduce the amount spent on overseas aid?
Labour Voters: Right: 44% Wrong: 37%
Lib Dem Voters: Right: 49% Wrong: 35%
As usual, I'd be in the minority but it's just as well we have a Government that doesn't obsess on polls or focus groups or trying to guess where the "majority" opinion is at any point.
It's less a question of whether we could retain the 0.7% as much as whether we should. I wonder what message it sends at the same time we are claiming, post EU, to be global in outlook and open to all. It doesn't look very global and simply trying to hide behind what countries are and aren't doing doesn't wash.
However, I'm in a minority on this - I would like an unequivocal commitment to return the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GDP in 2022-23. There's a debate to be had about where and how it should be spent and that should be had. I don't recall there being a huge debate about the rationale for increased defence spending - some on here would have you believe Putin's armoured divisions are a threat - I'm pretty sure they aren't two hours from the Rhine and the question then becomes whether Putin or anyone else will risk a third world war over Tallinn or Riga.
I am a great advocate of international aid. Correctly applied it is incredibly valuable both to the global community and to the U.K.
But the 0.7% target is utter bullcrap.
What we should spend depends on (a) how much we can afford and (b) can it be spent effectively. Some arbitrary percentage is damaging to good governance, creates perverse incentives and allows politicians to abdicate responsibility for their decision
Agreed. I would apply exactly the same logic to military spending.
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;
Craig.
Joubert.
Whohe? Never heard of him.
Rugby ref - presumably made a mistake in a Scotland game...
Not quite. Napoleon marching on Moscow was a mistake as was the Gallipoli campaign. This was just inexplicable.
These 'mistakes' may just have been good choices that finished up being unlucky.
I think perhaps Napoleon's misadventure was a mistake - you'd have not given him a good chance ahead of time. The understanding of army logistics was though almost non-existent - crusades and Ghengis Khan.
Gallipoli though really should have succeeded. Awful planning, awful subsequent tactics, and a total failure to recognise when things had gone irretrievably wrong.
So you are saying that they are more justifiable than Jubert? Fair enough.
Jubert? Joubert I guess? Not sure what you're referring to though.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
If a charity is paying someone £400k pa in what sense can it reasonably be called a charity?
To make matters worse, remember that under this ghastly charity tax relief system each pound donated is inflated by the donor`s marginal rate of tax thus depriving the exchequer of much needed money.
400k a year to give money away and seemingly with little effect.
There are some far smaller scale charities where it's clear the comparatively tiny money is having an effect. The big charities probably do some good, but they're often handing the money to the causes of the problems.
The twenty quid you feel good about because it'll help an undernourished child is somewhat likely to finish up buying a small part of a bottle of wildly expensive Champagne for someone you'd hate who's on a holiday in Switzerland whilst his employees brutalise the people you wanted to help in the first place.
I've changed to (almost) only giving to charities where I can actually see the accounts and the results.
Edit: This seems very bleak, and I didn't quite mean that. Many people in the charitable sector do great work - big and small charities.
I only give to small charities.
Some are industries, particularly those like Macmillan, Cancer Research, British Heart Foundation, RSPCA and who utterly dominate and soak up a lot of attention and money.
If anyone wants to find good small charities can I suggest that they look at www.thefore.org ? I have a fantastic team there who spend their time identifying and mentoring small and emerging charities - lots of great ideas of worthy causes to support
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.
True David and there are lots of areas of expenditure which were not guaranteed in their manifesto yet they have chosen to cut one which was guaranteed. If you bothered to read the exchange you would see that my point was that breaking the manifesto seems a perfectly reasonable reason to resign.
I appreciate that some Tories believe that they can say whatever they like to get elected and then do what they like once they are. But some have a different moral compass. There is nothing wrong with standing by your commitments. To suggest it is ‘madness’ seems absurd to me.
I am not saying its madness. I am just suggesting it is understandable in the circumstances that have arisen when we have suffered a massive economic blow. As I have said early in the thread I personally would have no problem, indeed would support, spending our foreign aid budget on immunising parts of the world who can't afford to do it themselves. I hope the government commit to that once the Oxford vaccination is approved.
They already have. We are the cornerstone backer of GAVI and a key finder for their Corona programme
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.
True David and there are lots of areas of expenditure which were not guaranteed in their manifesto yet they have chosen to cut one which was guaranteed. If you bothered to read the exchange you would see that my point was that breaking the manifesto seems a perfectly reasonable reason to resign.
I appreciate that some Tories believe that they can say whatever they like to get elected and then do what they like once they are. But some have a different moral compass. There is nothing wrong with standing by your commitments. To suggest it is ‘madness’ seems absurd to me.
I am not saying its madness. I am just suggesting it is understandable in the circumstances that have arisen when we have suffered a massive economic blow. As I have said early in the thread I personally would have no problem, indeed would support, spending our foreign aid budget on immunising parts of the world who can't afford to do it themselves. I hope the government commit to that once the Oxford vaccination is approved.
Fair point but there is an important point of principle which the Tories seem to have lost. You need to think really hard before you break manifesto comments. They did not need to ring fence overseas aid (in fact I have no idea why they did). But they did. This is exactly what Clegg got slaughtered for and remember he lost the general election and had to become the junior partner in a coalition.
It demonstrates an arrogance which may well come back to bite them in the end.
No one actually cares about the principle of breaking a manifesto commitment, only about the consequences (for themselves).
Clegg was punished for breaking a manifesto commitment because it hurt his own voters.
Almost no one who could possibly be hurt by Rishi's move has a vote, and the voters here are heartily in favour.
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.
I've no idea what the score is for the English stats, but there was a point when some days the successful uploading of the Welsh stats relied on my sister standing in just the right place in the street with a laptop using her phone as a WiFi hotspot. She wasn't allowed in the office, and lives in the back of beyond with almost no phone signal, having moved house the weekend of the 1st lockdown to a house with no phone line, and BT weren't interested in installing one because of the pandemic...!
I know she was fairly stressed about possible late publication as a result of all this foolery!
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
So you think people who work for a charity should all be unpaid?
Many, many people who work for a charity are unpaid, actually. The charity shops all across our streets are mainly staffed by volunteers. Why should so many be unpaid, and one person be paid 400k?
Miliband's ludicrous salary is just part of the corruption of our political classes (whether right or left).
Arguably, it is worse than the chumocracy, because it brings the notion of charity into disrepute.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
So you think people who work for a charity should all be unpaid? Or is there an ‘acceptable’ level of pay? I presume you are happy for the companies who run track and trace for the U.K. government to pay their bosses millions but charities, however successful those charities may be, cannot? Really that just seems to me to be an absurd argument.
How many nurses and doctors could we pay for with the millions we are bunging to private sector bosses? So, to be honest it still feels like a very selective anti charity, anti Milliband view to me.
We shouldn't bung anything to private industry we should pay for goods or services rendered at market rates.
Absolutely charities should be operated for minimal salaries. If you want to be earning Megabucks then earn it in the market not via taxes meant for charity being spent not for services rendered but deliberately as spending for the sake of spending.
I was once given some credit with Kiva (https://www.kiva.org/), a microfinance company, by an American retailer who were doing a corporate responsibility thing. I liked them - you got a choice of little projects, and in due course a report on whether it had worked, with your money back to use on something else when it did. I lost touch with them and reverted to more conventional UK donations. My preference is actually for larger charities, if they don't seem to wasting money on huge buildings, as small charities tend to have to spend a higher proportion on overheads - charity registration, keeping accouints, etc.
But essentially the main thing (declaration of interest by the way - I work for a charity) is to pick something you can relate to and give consistently what you can afford - too many people read about one or another charity scandal and use it as an excuse not give anything to anyone, which is clearly less helpful than giving to even an inefficient charity. DfID has enemies who still go on about a misplaced investment in groundnuts half a century ago, but they're quite well-regarded internationally, I believe - certainly when I was in Parliament the DfID Ministers were seriously preoccupied with detailed cost-benefit analyses of the different kinds of help.
It feels like tokenism to chip away at 0.2% of GDP at the expense of people who are often over 90% poorer than any of us are ever likely to be under whatever government we choose to elect, while cheerfully spaffing money at frigates to fight invisible enemies. Are we still building HS2, by the way?
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.
True David and there are lots of areas of expenditure which were not guaranteed in their manifesto yet they have chosen to cut one which was guaranteed. If you bothered to read the exchange you would see that my point was that breaking the manifesto seems a perfectly reasonable reason to resign.
I appreciate that some Tories believe that they can say whatever they like to get elected and then do what they like once they are. But some have a different moral compass. There is nothing wrong with standing by your commitments. To suggest it is ‘madness’ seems absurd to me.
I am not saying its madness. I am just suggesting it is understandable in the circumstances that have arisen when we have suffered a massive economic blow. As I have said early in the thread I personally would have no problem, indeed would support, spending our foreign aid budget on immunising parts of the world who can't afford to do it themselves. I hope the government commit to that once the Oxford vaccination is approved.
Fair point but there is an important point of principle which the Tories seem to have lost. You need to think really hard before you break manifesto comments. They did not need to ring fence overseas aid (in fact I have no idea why they did). But they did. This is exactly what Clegg got slaughtered for and remember he lost the general election and had to become the junior partner in a coalition.
It demonstrates an arrogance which may well come back to bite them in the end.
Clegg got slaughtered because he retraded on something his voters cared about. And because of those stupid videos.
The Tories have pivoted away from the metropolitan voters who care most about aid (but hate the Tories anyway because of Brexit) and towards people who won’t understand why we are sending £300m a week abroad. And there are no videos
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;
Craig.
Joubert.
Whohe? Never heard of him.
Rugby ref - presumably made a mistake in a Scotland game...
Not quite. Napoleon marching on Moscow was a mistake as was the Gallipoli campaign. This was just inexplicable.
Really obscure quiz question: which country’s national anthem mentions Napoleon?
Haiti?
I've just looked up the answer and I am dismayed to find my "shrewd" guess was thousands of miles off.
But it was a good guess tbf
I'm proud of my logic, since I was assuming his name was mentioned in an entirely negative context, and the timing is bloody perfect for it to be Haiti. But it was still completely wrong.
He come across as the hard working, penny counting Asian businessman.
And his critics come across as posh boys who want to rob the poor to give to foreigners.
These is no sense in which you're seeing what you want to see. No sir, none at all.
Look at the people criticizing - Cameron, Hunt, Mitchell - posh boys one and all.
And Rishi ? He's the clever Indian chappie who helped with the furloughs and the cheap meals.
Imagery matters and that will be the imagery which is widely believed.
If the reality is different well that's a problem you'll have to deal with.
Oh richard, I much prefer it when you write your three line posts, can you go back to doing that? It makes them look a little like haikus. It's the only thing that really makes me think you've made an effort. Four lines just isn't you.
alance of Power @BalancePowerUK · 57m POLL: Do you think the Govt are right or wrong to reduce the amount spent on overseas aid?
Labour Voters: Right: 44% Wrong: 37%
Lib Dem Voters: Right: 49% Wrong: 35%
As usual, I'd be in the minority but it's just as well we have a Government that doesn't obsess on polls or focus groups or trying to guess where the "majority" opinion is at any point.
It's less a question of whether we could retain the 0.7% as much as whether we should. I wonder what message it sends at the same time we are claiming, post EU, to be global in outlook and open to all. It doesn't look very global and simply trying to hide behind what countries are and aren't doing doesn't wash.
However, I'm in a minority on this - I would like an unequivocal commitment to return the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GDP in 2022-23. There's a debate to be had about where and how it should be spent and that should be had. I don't recall there being a huge debate about the rationale for increased defence spending - some on here would have you believe Putin's armoured divisions are a threat - I'm pretty sure they aren't two hours from the Rhine and the question then becomes whether Putin or anyone else will risk a third world war over Tallinn or Riga.
I am a great advocate of international aid. Correctly applied it is incredibly valuable both to the global community and to the U.K.
But the 0.7% target is utter bullcrap.
What we should spend depends on (a) how much we can afford and (b) can it be spent effectively. Some arbitrary percentage is damaging to good governance, creates perverse incentives and allows politicians to abdicate responsibility for their decision
Agreed. I would apply exactly the same logic to military spending.
You should apply it to all government spending
But defence spending has more downside and less upside than foreign aid. As governments are designed to manage community risks that individuals can’t alone then there will be a bias towards higher spending in that sort of area
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
So you think people who work for a charity should all be unpaid?
Many, many people who work for a charity are unpaid, actually. The charity shops all across our streets are mainly staffed by volunteers. Why should so many be unpaid, and one person be paid 400k?
Miliband's ludicrous salary is just part of the corruption of our political classes (whether right or left).
Arguably, it is worse than the chumocracy, because it brings the notion of charity into disrepute.
My daughter has just spent more than 2 weeks in northern France with refugees on her holidays from her work. Cost her a few quid actually, nothing paid.
Interesting that NYC seeing big uptick, lombardy badly hit again, but little sign of a repeat of the plague in London. Maybe just luck.
Nothing in life is more important than luck.
I wonder if there was a especially large reduction in the number of Londoners compared with other Britons who thought it a good idea to go to Spain this summer.
I remember news reports on super-spreader events in August connected to returning holidaymakers in much of England and Wales but not in London.
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;
Craig.
Joubert.
Whohe? Never heard of him.
Rugby ref - presumably made a mistake in a Scotland game...
Not quite. Napoleon marching on Moscow was a mistake as was the Gallipoli campaign. This was just inexplicable.
Really obscure quiz question: which country’s national anthem mentions Napoleon?
Haiti?
I've just looked up the answer and I am dismayed to find my "shrewd" guess was thousands of miles off.
But it was a good guess tbf
I'm proud of my logic, since I was assuming his name was mentioned in an entirely negative context, and the timing is bloody perfect for it to be Haiti. But it was still completely wrong.
Logic perfect but completely wrong, sounds like you should get involved with politics.
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.
True David and there are lots of areas of expenditure which were not guaranteed in their manifesto yet they have chosen to cut one which was guaranteed. If you bothered to read the exchange you would see that my point was that breaking the manifesto seems a perfectly reasonable reason to resign.
I appreciate that some Tories believe that they can say whatever they like to get elected and then do what they like once they are. But some have a different moral compass. There is nothing wrong with standing by your commitments. To suggest it is ‘madness’ seems absurd to me.
I am not saying its madness. I am just suggesting it is understandable in the circumstances that have arisen when we have suffered a massive economic blow. As I have said early in the thread I personally would have no problem, indeed would support, spending our foreign aid budget on immunising parts of the world who can't afford to do it themselves. I hope the government commit to that once the Oxford vaccination is approved.
Fair point but there is an important point of principle which the Tories seem to have lost. You need to think really hard before you break manifesto comments. They did not need to ring fence overseas aid (in fact I have no idea why they did). But they did. This is exactly what Clegg got slaughtered for and remember he lost the general election and had to become the junior partner in a coalition.
It demonstrates an arrogance which may well come back to bite them in the end.
No one actually cares about the principle of breaking a manifesto commitment, only about the consequences (for themselves).
Clegg was punished for breaking a manifesto commitment because it hurt his own voters.
Almost no one who could possibly be hurt by Rishi's move has a vote, and the voters here are heartily in favour.
Context matters.
The Tories will hope no one cares about breaking manifesto commitments and to be fare the Tories frequently seem to get away with it. The public obviously accept that any Tory manifesto is a work of fiction and in 2019 they seemed not to care. If that will be the same in 2024 we will have to wait and see.
He come across as the hard working, penny counting Asian businessman.
And his critics come across as posh boys who want to rob the poor to give to foreigners.
These is no sense in which you're seeing what you want to see. No sir, none at all.
Look at the people criticizing - Cameron, Hunt, Mitchell - posh boys one and all.
And Rishi ? He's the clever Indian chappie who helped with the furloughs and the cheap meals.
Imagery matters and that will be the imagery which is widely believed.
If the reality is different well that's a problem you'll have to deal with.
Oh richard, I much prefer it when you write your three line posts, can you go back to doing that? It makes them look a little like haikus. It's the only thing that really makes me think you've made an effort. Four lines just isn't you.
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.
True David and there are lots of areas of expenditure which were not guaranteed in their manifesto yet they have chosen to cut one which was guaranteed. If you bothered to read the exchange you would see that my point was that breaking the manifesto seems a perfectly reasonable reason to resign.
I appreciate that some Tories believe that they can say whatever they like to get elected and then do what they like once they are. But some have a different moral compass. There is nothing wrong with standing by your commitments. To suggest it is ‘madness’ seems absurd to me.
I am not saying its madness. I am just suggesting it is understandable in the circumstances that have arisen when we have suffered a massive economic blow. As I have said early in the thread I personally would have no problem, indeed would support, spending our foreign aid budget on immunising parts of the world who can't afford to do it themselves. I hope the government commit to that once the Oxford vaccination is approved.
Fair point but there is an important point of principle which the Tories seem to have lost. You need to think really hard before you break manifesto comments. They did not need to ring fence overseas aid (in fact I have no idea why they did). But they did. This is exactly what Clegg got slaughtered for and remember he lost the general election and had to become the junior partner in a coalition.
It demonstrates an arrogance which may well come back to bite them in the end.
Clegg got slaughtered because he retraded on something his voters cared about. And because of those stupid videos.
The Tories have pivoted away from the metropolitan voters who care most about aid (but hate the Tories anyway because of Brexit) and towards people who won’t understand why we are sending £300m a week abroad. And there are no videos
Thing is, it's really easy to explain why. Andrew Mitchell managed it today, and he's far from the sharpest political tool in the box.
Because UK aid is pretty well targeted these days, and because the third world is really poor (you remember- "The UK doesn't have proper poverty any more, we don't need Free School Meals..."), the cuts announced today are the equivalent of about 100,000 more children dying prematurely.
A statesman can make that case in a way that's understandable. A populist hack can't be bothered.
And Rishi's political stature is a bit closer to his physical stature than it was this evening.
Interesting that NYC seeing big uptick, lombardy badly hit again, but little sign of a repeat of the plague in London. Maybe just luck.
Those stats are actually NYS (my mistake) which has even worse deaths/m figures than NYC. NYS and NJ are closing in on 2,000 deaths/m. Eight states are over the 1,000 mark
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.
True David and there are lots of areas of expenditure which were not guaranteed in their manifesto yet they have chosen to cut one which was guaranteed. If you bothered to read the exchange you would see that my point was that breaking the manifesto seems a perfectly reasonable reason to resign.
I appreciate that some Tories believe that they can say whatever they like to get elected and then do what they like once they are. But some have a different moral compass. There is nothing wrong with standing by your commitments. To suggest it is ‘madness’ seems absurd to me.
I am not saying its madness. I am just suggesting it is understandable in the circumstances that have arisen when we have suffered a massive economic blow. As I have said early in the thread I personally would have no problem, indeed would support, spending our foreign aid budget on immunising parts of the world who can't afford to do it themselves. I hope the government commit to that once the Oxford vaccination is approved.
Fair point but there is an important point of principle which the Tories seem to have lost. You need to think really hard before you break manifesto comments. They did not need to ring fence overseas aid (in fact I have no idea why they did). But they did. This is exactly what Clegg got slaughtered for and remember he lost the general election and had to become the junior partner in a coalition.
It demonstrates an arrogance which may well come back to bite them in the end.
No one actually cares about the principle of breaking a manifesto commitment, only about the consequences (for themselves).
Clegg was punished for breaking a manifesto commitment because it hurt his own voters.
Almost no one who could possibly be hurt by Rishi's move has a vote, and the voters here are heartily in favour.
Context matters.
The Tories will hope no one cares about breaking manifesto commitments and to be fare the Tories frequently seem to get away with it. The public obviously accept that any Tory manifesto is a work of fiction and in 2019 they seemed not to care. If that will be the same in 2024 we will have to wait and see.
Manifestos aren't entirely worthless but they also don't mean as much as we pretend - I think voters are willing to be more forgiving of going outside them than parties give them credit for, since while u-turns are presented as being weak if it is justified people will get it, and they also don't object too hard when things not even mentioned are undertaken, if justified. As you say you do need to think hard about doing it, but in fairnes they have thought about it, and are even caveating it with talk of putting it back up again later and so on, when many of their supporters have, for years, simply talked about eliminating it.
Cutting foreign aid is going to be popular with the public, it was too much to hope that Boris would resist this. In many ways - I'm amazed how long the commitment lasted under Tory governments.
Cutting in one year is going to be particularly difficult because so much of the money is already committed - so it means backing out of existing pledges and projects.
Interesting that NYC seeing big uptick, lombardy badly hit again, but little sign of a repeat of the plague in London. Maybe just luck.
Those New York figures are for the whole state, and in fact it's some upstate areas that are trending the worst. e.g. Rochester, NY. The city is definitely seeing an uptick though, and NYC schools are currently back to remote-only. My area in Westchester County is now designated a "yellow zone", the lowest of the three tiers of special measures.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
I have no problem with people being successful.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
This David Miliband:
Official records reveal that leadership contender David Miliband has accrued over half a million pounds in private earnings and expenses over a single year.
Over the financial year 2011-12, the former foreign secretary earned £446,320.60 in fees alone – for advice, directorships, speeches and lectures. For venture capital firm VantagePoint, he received £92,839.75 – for four-and-a-half days work. For a half day at Indus Basin Holdings, a private Hydroelectric venture on the Indian sub-continent, he took £7,560.85.
Among his expenses, two trips to Jordan, sponsored by the government of that country, came in at £4,161.
£4,995 was from Tony Blair’s Africa Governance Initiative, through which the former PM is advising the President of Guinea on the latter’s relationships with mining companies.
For consultancy Oxford Analytica, Mr Miliband received fees and expenses worth a total of £55,758.33. He declared that he had worked eight days for the firm over the year.
He also spent a week lecturing at Stanford University, charging a fee of £25,027 and travel and accommodation worth £3,834.
Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.
He used to be second, but then came Johnson.
Edit - I wonder if he might be tempted to stand for Holyrood? He is after all the last non-SNP leader to win an election in Scotland, and while he was a bit rubbish he’s no Salmond or Swinney.
Comments
https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/25/21719396/amazon-web-services-aws-outage-down-internet
The OBR assumes, presumably with good reason given how closely it works with the Treasury, widespread deployment of a vaccine by the middle of 2021, not by the Spring, with a high to medium level of restrictions until then.
https://order-order.com/2020/11/25/rishis-figures-reveal-government-planning-longer-tougher-restrictions/
It's less a question of whether we could retain the 0.7% as much as whether we should. I wonder what message it sends at the same time we are claiming, post EU, to be global in outlook and open to all. It doesn't look very global and simply trying to hide behind what countries are and aren't doing doesn't wash.
However, I'm in a minority on this - I would like an unequivocal commitment to return the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GDP in 2022-23. There's a debate to be had about where and how it should be spent and that should be had. I don't recall there being a huge debate about the rationale for increased defence spending - some on here would have you believe Putin's armoured divisions are a threat - I'm pretty sure they aren't two hours from the Rhine and the question then becomes whether Putin or anyone else will risk a third world war over Tallinn or Riga.
Some are industries, particularly those like Macmillan, Cancer Research, British Heart Foundation, RSPCA and who utterly dominate and soak up a lot of attention and money.
How many nurses and doctors could we pay for with the millions we are bunging to private sector bosses? So, to be honest it still feels like a very selective anti charity, anti Milliband view to me.
This man is a disgrace to the country, the House of Commons and even what is left of the Tories. He is utter scum.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1331679187070054404?s=20
Not quite a lie, but thunderously misleading?
Par for the course, really.
The political cost will indeed be high but how many will realise it? How many will buy the fiction that it's all the EU's fault? How many will really care?
An Angel has died.
I remember hearing about the time he gave bone marrow in order to save an 8 year old boy.
Although done anonymously the parents of the boy were heard to say
God bless Marrow Donor
Gets Coat
I suspect London will be in Tier 2 - my brother thinks Kent will be in Tier 2 but I don't - I think it will be in Tier 3. Obviously, whatever the Tier, I will be able to go back to the betting shop and join the crowds by the FOBTs - that can only end well.
Needless to say, the political pleading from the Conservative backbenches is in evidence:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-coronavirus-restrictions-tier-3-boris-johnson-backlash-b79135.html
At this stage we're into well choreographed panto. It will be like that right up to the minute it's signed - and might even get louder.
State aid (the big sticking point of 2 months ago) has now largely been solved (that used to
be huge) and we're now into governance and regression clauses, and a final haggle on fish quotas - plus some weird articles on Irish meat exports. I can't really see any of that breaking it. Indeed, on fish the EU were asking for a review in 10 years which suggests they've agreed to accept something fairly unplatable to them now and are haggling to reopen it in future.
I will do something old-fashioned when a Deal is finally announced: I will read it in full first before commenting on it.
I expect I'll be in a small minority.
He may of course have been misquoted, but given it was being used to justify a wholly unjustifiable and arguably illegal action, that seems unlikely.
Bearing in mind he’s also one of the idiots who buggered up exam reform and a friend of Dominic Cummings, I’m sticking with ‘dishonest.’
Because I am much nicer I suggest that he is just totally incompetent as opposed to dishonest but maybe I am too soft.
Remind me, what have the government been up to recently?
It demonstrates an arrogance which may well come back to bite them in the end.
However, the Remain/Rejoin constituency is easily big enough for it to influence Labour/LDs politics for years to come so I expect Starmer will have to offer something meaningfully "closer" in his manifesto at the next election.
In the average year, you would expect around 3-5% off at any one time. But actually, sickness absence is lower this year, on account of the better hygiene systems and bubbling. So you could make that 1-2%.
So even on the most generous assumption, the government figure is out by half.
But even that does not in any way excuse Gibb. His claim is so ludicrous it even beats Cummings’ claim about his eye test.
It is fine for the Govt to put out all these ads saying be prepared, but how?
I give you 2 examples. As I type this a guy on C4 news wants to export fryers. He has the orders but has no idea about paperwork, fees, etc so is in limbo. Pharmaceutical companies have prepared as much as possible, but are still waiting for final instructions from the Govt as to procedures. In NI there are currently 2 conflicting requirements regarding drug safety including labelling. There are lead times involved and not enough time.
He come across as the hard working, penny counting Asian businessman.
And his critics come across as posh boys who want to rob the poor to give to foreigners.
It's a terrible strategy in government and marriage.
I'll settle for getting through lockdown.
Oh no it isn't.
Oh yes it is.
(repeat until a child throws up)
But the 0.7% target is utter bullcrap.
What we should spend depends on (a) how much we can afford and (b) can it be spent effectively. Some arbitrary percentage is damaging to good governance, creates perverse incentives and allows politicians to abdicate responsibility for their decision
Calling for furlough until next summer does not impress those who have been working, are still working and will continue to work.
Perhaps its a policy which the Thames Valley and Scottish upper middle classes approve of.
I would apply exactly the same logic to military spending.
That might not impress some Conservative MPs.
But might impress some other Conservative MPs.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president
Clegg was punished for breaking a manifesto commitment because it hurt his own voters.
Almost no one who could possibly be hurt by Rishi's move has a vote, and the voters here are heartily in favour.
Context matters.
I know she was fairly stressed about possible late publication as a result of all this foolery!
Miliband's ludicrous salary is just part of the corruption of our political classes (whether right or left).
Arguably, it is worse than the chumocracy, because it brings the notion of charity into disrepute.
Because they mention Bonaparte.
Absolutely charities should be operated for minimal salaries. If you want to be earning Megabucks then earn it in the market not via taxes meant for charity being spent not for services rendered but deliberately as spending for the sake of spending.
https://blog.givewell.org/2009/10/23/6-myths-about-microfinance-charity-that-donors-can-do-without/
I was once given some credit with Kiva (https://www.kiva.org/), a microfinance company, by an American retailer who were doing a corporate responsibility thing. I liked them - you got a choice of little projects, and in due course a report on whether it had worked, with your money back to use on something else when it did. I lost touch with them and reverted to more conventional UK donations. My preference is actually for larger charities, if they don't seem to wasting money on huge buildings, as small charities tend to have to spend a higher proportion on overheads - charity registration, keeping accouints, etc.
But essentially the main thing (declaration of interest by the way - I work for a charity) is to pick something you can relate to and give consistently what you can afford - too many people read about one or another charity scandal and use it as an excuse not give anything to anyone, which is clearly less helpful than giving to even an inefficient charity. DfID has enemies who still go on about a misplaced investment in groundnuts half a century ago, but they're quite well-regarded internationally, I believe - certainly when I was in Parliament the DfID Ministers were seriously preoccupied with detailed cost-benefit analyses of the different kinds of help.
It feels like tokenism to chip away at 0.2% of GDP at the expense of people who are often over 90% poorer than any of us are ever likely to be under whatever government we choose to elect, while cheerfully spaffing money at frigates to fight invisible enemies. Are we still building HS2, by the way?
The Tories have pivoted away from the metropolitan voters who care most about aid (but hate the Tories anyway because of Brexit) and towards people who won’t understand why we are sending £300m a week abroad. And there are no videos
And Rishi ? He's the 'clever Indian chappie' who helped with the furloughs and the cheap meals.
Imagery matters and that will be the imagery which is widely believed.
If the reality is different well that's a problem you'll have to deal with.
But it was still completely wrong.
It makes them look a little like haikus. It's the only thing that really makes me think you've made an effort.
Four lines just isn't you.
But defence spending has more downside and less upside than foreign aid. As governments are designed to manage community risks that individuals can’t alone then there will be a bias towards higher spending in that sort of area
I wonder if there was a especially large reduction in the number of Londoners compared with other Britons who thought it a good idea to go to Spain this summer.
I remember news reports on super-spreader events in August connected to returning holidaymakers in much of England and Wales but not in London.
Introduction, discussion, conclusion.
Is that better ?
Anyone know why?
Because UK aid is pretty well targeted these days, and because the third world is really poor (you remember- "The UK doesn't have proper poverty any more, we don't need Free School Meals..."), the cuts announced today are the equivalent of about 100,000 more children dying prematurely.
A statesman can make that case in a way that's understandable. A populist hack can't be bothered.
And Rishi's political stature is a bit closer to his physical stature than it was this evening.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
In my daughter's case she has done a lot of overtime and seen over 90 new staff recruited
There is job security, good pension, and overtime while being able to manage her childrens activity and schooling very well
Contrast that to those in the hospitality and travel industries
Hypocrisy rules OK.
What a weird blip.
I tried checking CNN's live updates page but seems to be something wrong with it - you load new updates and page goes completely blank.
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-trump-us-election-news-11-25-20/h_8c13e145584314c207c65e10be49ffcd
Cutting in one year is going to be particularly difficult because so much of the money is already committed - so it means backing out of existing pledges and projects.
https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1331560806060859392?s=20
Official records reveal that leadership contender David Miliband has accrued over half a million pounds in private earnings and expenses over a single year.
Over the financial year 2011-12, the former foreign secretary earned £446,320.60 in fees alone – for advice, directorships, speeches and lectures. For venture capital firm VantagePoint, he received £92,839.75 – for four-and-a-half days work. For a half day at Indus Basin Holdings, a private Hydroelectric venture on the Indian sub-continent, he took £7,560.85.
Among his expenses, two trips to Jordan, sponsored by the government of that country, came in at £4,161.
£4,995 was from Tony Blair’s Africa Governance Initiative, through which the former PM is advising the President of Guinea on the latter’s relationships with mining companies.
For consultancy Oxford Analytica, Mr Miliband received fees and expenses worth a total of £55,758.33. He declared that he had worked eight days for the firm over the year.
He also spent a week lecturing at Stanford University, charging a fee of £25,027 and travel and accommodation worth £3,834.
https://www.leftfutures.org/2012/08/david-milibands-half-million-in-private-earnings-an-admission-of-retirement/
I think its safe to say that the people of South Shields did rather more for David Miliband than he ever did for them.
However if you follow my posts, and as a pensioner, I have consistently said the triple lock should go
He used to be second, but then came Johnson.
Edit - I wonder if he might be tempted to stand for Holyrood? He is after all the last non-SNP leader to win an election in Scotland, and while he was a bit rubbish he’s no Salmond or Swinney.