Poll: Was Rishi right to cut Foreign aid

Was Rishi right to cut Foreign aid

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Even though I got a parking ticket in the main square in the summer!
 
Sponsored Links
Charity is a personal thing and it should be up to the individual to donate. Governments probably aren't the most efficient distributors of charitable donations. I'm not convinced that govt. employees and ministers haven't been dining at the ambassadors table eating ferrero rocher for many decades cashing in on my mandatory "donations". On top of that its a massive HMRC scam.

If I pay £200 to charity I can get nearly £100 off my tax. If the same £200 is taken from my income its cost me nearly £300 pre-tax.
 
Debates are fine if everyone understood economics, finance, GDP, Deficits etc. I don't get into debates on what pipe fitting to use but all and sundry have an opinion on complex economics issues. There is no both sides of an argument when one person brings nothing other than their opinion. Should there be both sides of a debate between a flat earther and a astrophysicist?

We don't need both sides of an argument - we just need one set of facts. RWR have a habit of denying facts.

While there may only be "one set of facts", there are differing (learned, and valid, depending on the outcomes they're hoping to achieve) opinions on how to manage an economy, in the knowledge of those "facts". That is why are there different schools of economic thought.


You've also subtly twisted the narrative in your post as well - people without economic understanding should not be permitted an opinion on such matters - which is fine.
But that doesn't mean they should be totally divorced from the process either.
Non-economists do not need a working knowledge of economics to know what outcome they want.

I don't tell Joe (who, de temps en temps, fixes my boiler) what to do, beyond "make my heating work please!"
I give him the desired outcome, and he either delivers it within agreed parameters (time, cost, trouble, longevity of solution, etc), or gives me a set of other options to achieve my desired outcome.
I don't need a working knowledge of boiler mechanics (or a Gas Safe registration) to state my "desired outcome".

Edited for typo.
 
Last edited:
No vaccine as yet has been cleared for use and the AZ vaccine trials have not released their data.

thats an astonishing waste of money when the vaccine is not too far off.

Talk about trying to argue both sides.....

Its amazing how you talk about the nasty right wing yet you clearly have so much hate and negativity.
 
Talk about trying to argue both sides.....

Its amazing how you talk about the nasty right wing yet you clearly have so much hate and negativity.

They are not mutually exclusive unless you need that pointed out.

Can you tell me the evidence that Operation Moonstot cost will be beneficial when the Testing system is failing.
 
Last edited:
While there may only be "one set of facts", there are differing (learned, and valid, depending on the outcomes they're hoping to achieve) opinions on how to manage an economy, in the knowledge of those "facts". That is why are there different schools of economic thought.


You've also subtly twisted the narrative in your post as well - people without economic understanding should not be permitted an opinion on such matters - which is fine.
But that doesn't mean they should be totally divorced from the process either.
Non-economists do not need a working knowledge of economics to know what outcome they want.

I don't tell Joe (who, de temps en temps, fixes my boiler) what to do, beyond "make my heating work please!"
I give him the desired outcome, and he either delivers it within agreed parameters (time, cost, trouble, longevity of solution, etc), or gives me a set of other options to achieve my desired outcome.
I don't need a working knowledge of boiler mechanics (or a Gas Safe registration) to state my "desired outcome".

Edited for typo.

But the outcome they want is based on their lack of knowledge / understanding. Or shall we explain the paradox at the heart of capitalism? They all want lower taxes and better services, or no regulation but then complain about poor standards.

Look at all those saying we need a Private Healthcare system like the US - not seeing just how massive waste of resources that is. Then saying they don't want to pay for someone else's treatment - when that is excatly what happens in an Insurance based system - you pool the risk and some get paid out whilst others just contribute. The cognitive dissonance is off the scale.

The outcome people want is their rational choice - what they believe to be in their best interests but the work by Kahnemann has pretty much proven people are easily influenced and distracted so want things that are not in their best interests.
 
Last edited:
But the outcome they want is based on their lack of knowledge / understanding.

Not in all cases.
Then that is for those who "know" to explain.
The alternative is to pat the taxpayer on the head, and say "there there; we'll decide what's best for you".



Or shall we explain the paradox at the heart of capitalism? They all want lower taxes and better services, or no regulation but then complain about poor standards.

"All"? Some yes, but not "all".
You can also flip this, and see examples where higher taxes and more regulation have not lead to better standards.

Look at all those saying we need a Private Healthcare system like the US - not seeing just how massive waste of resources that is. Then saying they don't want to pay for someone else's treatment - when that is excatly what happens in an Insurance based system - you pool the risk and some get paid out whilst others just contribute. The cognitive dissonance is off the scale.

And there are plenty who are not averse to (non-US-style) private healthcare.
And there are plenty who "get" the concept of insurance, and are happy with it.
Just because some don't (or don't want to) "get it", doesn't mean that no-one does.
That's just an appeal to extremes.


The outcome people want is their rational choice - what they believe to be in their best interests but the work by Kahnemann has pretty much proven people are easily influenced and distracted so want things that are not in their best interests.


Again, not all people.

So, who are you advocating as being permitted to make decisions on all of our futures, in the absence of us being permitted so to do?
 
If corruption, cronyism and narrow self-interest were eliminated, aid wouldn't be needed. Then again, how would our government maintain its foreign interests?
 
Historically it had its place. However, we get all the rhetoric about maintaining relationships, ensuring those in need in said countries are helped, etc. What can't be denied is some of these countries are now relatively wealthy, one is an emerging superpower. What also can't be denied is some are beyond corrupt, with those in power skimming off tens/hundreds of millions living like royalty whilst their own people live in poverty. That's how much they care about their homeland and people.

And, like the mugs we are, we keep sending these countries money. I know who the fool is and it isn't the other countries.
 
Whatever this government does it’ll never be enough for the 3 stooges.
The fact that baring Scandinavia we are the only Country in The Eu that conformed to the UN’s recommendations Of .7 GDP.
Then they’ll come up with some strange reply calling everyone right wing & haters.

Weirdos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top