How much did this lot cost (London Fireworks)

[Lord Bracknell]

Yes, that would have been more useful.

The truth of the matter is that the UK still spends a significant sum of money on international development. Some of this goes on medical and hospital facilities of the sort that Uncle Spielberg identifies as "useful". The reality is that this is politically controversial expenditure that seems to be acceptable to the public only as long as there is a reasonably buoyant "feel-good factor" out there.

If we start cancelling firework displays, on the grounds that they are "totally inappropriate", it won't be very long before the mood of gloom extends to cancelling the international development budget and the "useful" projects will grind to a halt.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

2 weeks wages for Vicente

 

[Dr Q]

Thought it was a great display, although the music seemed a little random. Maybe the firework planners iPod on shuffle?

 

[NMH]

The larger casinos in Vegas can make an easy $2mil a day each, and they are at it 24/7 all year. The US government can fund an African hospital or two, and stop starting wasteful wars that put people in hospitals and send rockets into (random) buildings that cost upwards of 10 grand each.

And we will get on with a nice display without feeling too guilty about it

 

[teaboy]

£2m I heard - who made them?

That was the fine work of Daryl Fleming, Display Manager for Kimbolton Fireworks. The budget will cover EVERYTHING for the event - security, road closures, barge hire, rigging costs, etc. The actual cost of that display would be somewhere around £300,000 - £500,000.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

That was the fine work of Daryl Fleming, Display Manager for Kimbolton Fireworks. The budget will cover EVERYTHING for the event - security, road closures, barge hire, rigging costs, etc. The actual cost of that display would be somewhere around £300,000 - £500,000.

... and thanks to you, teaboy, for supplying some of the pyrotechnics that enlivened Blakers Park at midnight last night. I reckon we must have set off a couple of quids' worth of bangs.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

The truth of the matter is that the UK still spends a significant sum of money on international development. Some of this goes on medical and hospital facilities of the sort that Uncle Spielberg identifies as "useful". The reality is that this is politically controversial expenditure that seems to be acceptable to the public only as long as there is a reasonably buoyant "feel-good factor" out there.

If we start cancelling firework displays, on the grounds that they are "totally inappropriate", it won't be very long before the mood of gloom extends to cancelling the international development budget and the "useful" projects will grind to a halt.

I read recently that we are still sending millions to oil rich Brazil who have just overtaken us in the economies league.
I may have enjoyed the display a little more if it was paid for from the profits of the utility companies and banks the swindling bastards.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I read recently that we are still sending millions to oil rich Brazil who have just overtaken us in the economies league.
I may have enjoyed the display a little more if it was paid for from the profits of the utility companies and banks the swindling bastards.

The UK government's current statement on aid to Brazil is on the website of the Department for International Development (DFID):-

"DFID is working in partnership with Brazil to promote development and poverty reduction globally. DFID has no programme inside Brazil itself."

DFID - Brazil

 

[BigGully]

If we start cancelling firework displays, on the grounds that they are "totally inappropriate", it won't be very long before the mood of gloom extends to cancelling the international development budget and the "useful" projects will grind to a halt.

I thought it was a fantastic display and cannot help thinking if we do not let some quango decide to spend some 'budget' on something uplifting, they will then spunk it on something irrelevant elsewhere anyhow.

Is the 'useful projects' you allude to include the £295m we give of taxpayers money to India, although it remains a nuclear power and spends £36bn per annum on their own defence and £750m on their own space project.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The money is insignificant to the £10B being spunked on the Olympics just to make it better than Beijing.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Is the 'useful projects' you allude to include the £295m we give of taxpayers money to India, although it remains a nuclear power and spends £36bn per annum on their own defence and £750m on their own space project.

Current DFID spending in India is £280m a year, until 2015.

The priorities are:-
++ Focus on the poorest people in India's low income states: UK assistance will benefit the poorest people in three poor states - Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa - reinforcing the deep, productive partnerships we have built over the last decade
++ Put women and girls at the heart of our work: the UK will invest in girls' education; access to finance, skills and low carbon energy; safe birth, children by choice and reducing violence against women; children's health and nutrition; and sanitation
++ Catalyse the private sector's potential to combat poverty: to support growth in the low income states the UK will develop programmes of pro-poor private investment to deliver jobs, products, infrastructure and basic services
++ Deepen our engagement with India on global issues where there may be benefits for poor people elsewhere: such as growth and trade, climate change, resource scarcity and health and disease control

There's an obvious case for disengagement with direct aid to India and this is what is happening. India is still a country with huge differences in income. The aim is to phase out direct aid, but, until that is achieved, continue to work to relieve poverty and promote practical economic development in the poorest parts of the country.

British MPs back aid to India | Liz Ford | Global development | guardian.co.uk

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

At the risk of really getting slapped down and as much as I agree with aid, I find it difficult to comprehend how we can INCREASE aid to countries that on the face of it do not need it, when other countries who have stronger economies are DECREASING aid or giving the same amount. We have far to many problems to sort out here. Can anyone tell me why we increased aid when I thought there was no money left in the coffers.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

At the risk of really getting slapped down and as much as I agree with aid, I find it difficult to comprehend how we can INCREASE aid to countries that on the face of it do not need it, when other countries who have stronger economies are DECREASING aid or giving the same amount. We have far to many problems to sort out here. Can anyone tell me why we increased aid when I thought there was no money left in the coffers.

UK aid budget refocuses 'on areas of greatest need', including Yemen
End of aid to Russia, Serbia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam and Moldova, as poorer or failing nations prioritised

UK aid budget refocuses 'on areas of greatest need', including Yemen | Global development | The Guardian


UK aid review: which countries is DfID cutting?
The UK aid review has finally reported. Has India been cut? Which countries are the biggest winners?

UK aid review: which countries is DfID cutting? | News | guardian.co.uk

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

We gave aid to Russia! what the hell for.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

We gave aid to Russia! what the hell for.

Good question - although it was only £1.3 million in 2010 (about enough for about a five minute firework display, if that's the unit of currency that is appropriate for this thread) and it has now been phased out completely.

DFID - Russian Federation

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

I'm off now but it would be good to pick this up again as it is a subject I am interested in, but I look at it in a simple way whereas I have always enjoyed your posts and knowledge of all things political especially during the Falmer problems.

 

[sydney]

i find the fact that we are still sending 100's of millions of aid off-shore to countries such as india utterly astonishing........their economy is accelerating at an alarming rate and their intake of raw materials is second only(just) to china,at the same time there are 100,000's of British people living below the poverty line , to me , it just doesn't seem right.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The truth of the matter is that the UK still spends a significant sum of money on international development. Some of this goes on medical and hospital facilities of the sort that Uncle Spielberg identifies as "useful". The reality is that this is politically controversial expenditure that seems to be acceptable to the public only as long as there is a reasonably buoyant "feel-good factor" out there.

If we start cancelling firework displays, on the grounds that they are "totally inappropriate", it won't be very long before the mood of gloom extends to cancelling the international development budget and the "useful" projects will grind to a halt.

As ALWAYS you are right Ed. I will get back in my box and shut up.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

HAHA! £4m you say or, in other words, 6.7p per person spread over 365 days.
Are you THAT poor? If you are I suggest you sell your computer and stop paying for the internet...

May well do that, thanks mate.

 

[Chicken Run]

Where did the figure 4m come from, they have just said on Sky News that the cost was 280k?