UKIP are now a parliamentary party

[Westdene Seagull]

I do have an issue in relation to UKIP stopping foreign aid. There are thousands of people dying and suffering in Africa at present as a result of Ebola, and as far as UKIP are concerned, they're foreign so let them die.

That's not strictly true. UKIP have said there should be a contingency fund to deal with things like Ebola. What they want to cut is aid to countries that can for example afford a space programme or indeed that have a stronger economy than us ( a point that Eric Pickles refused to answer on Question Time this week but then every time he gave an answer to anything he looked at the ceiling or the floor so he's hardly trust worthy ).

 

[El Presidente]

Saving £55 million a day would go a long way !
regards
DR

You are quoting the gross, not net cost of membership though.

 

[El Presidente]

That said, my opinion is that the question of EU membership overrides anything else and so I will continue to support them ( although that doesn't mean always vote for them ) all the while the UK stays in the EU.

If you think that EU membership overrides the issues health, education, economic prosperity, care for the elderly, policing, defence, transport and the environment then it's fair enough that you should vote for them, and I applaud you for sticking to your guns.

 

[piersa]

You are quoting the gross, not net cost of membership though.

What is the net cost?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

If you think that EU membership overrides the issues health, education, economic prosperity, care for the elderly, policing, defence, transport and the environment then it's fair enough that you should vote for them, and I applaud you for sticking to your guns.

I do as EU policy and law constrains what our government can do in all those areas. It's a case of 'Eu knows best'. Rid ourselves of that and we can make our own decisions on all those areas ( I'll exclude defence from that statement as we forced the EU to back away on that area ).

 

[beorhthelm]

What is the net cost?

£8.6Bn, or £23.5M a day.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

£8.6Bn, or £23.5M a day.

Obviously remembering that we don't get a choice on what we spend the 'returned' money on.

 

[drew]

That's not strictly true. UKIP have said there should be a contingency fund to deal with things like Ebola. What they want to cut is aid to countries that can for example afford a space programme or indeed that have a stronger economy than us ( a point that Eric Pickles refused to answer on Question Time this week but then every time he gave an answer to anything he looked at the ceiling or the floor so he's hardly trust worthy ).

That is disengenuous as, I assume, you know that aid to India is due to stop next year. Ideally we shouldn't have been given aid in the first place but we have been for many years and maybe the hardship created by stopping immediately could have been devastating for the areas that were receiving aid hence the reason it has been phased out over time. Despite the space programme and growing economy, I understand that India has some of the poorest areas in the world. Take India out of the equation and therefore removing the favourite soundbite of those against any foreign aid, and which other countries in the top ten that receive aid to you believe don't need it?

 

[Buzzer]

Don't worry I am not going anywhere. I will still be around to set you 'racist' fellas straight.

I'm racist am I? Care to back that up with some evidence?

 

[Soulman]

2015 is less than 12 weeks away (although I accept aid budget is likely to be from April). Where did you get the figure of £1b in aid to India, unless of course you are referring to several years of aid!

Was in the links, either the Guardian or Telegraph, did you not read them.

 

[drew]

Was in the links, either the Guardian or Telegraph, did you not read them.

You're right, I didn't as the weren't part of the post I was responding through! Apologies.

 

[Soulman]

That is disengenuous as, I assume, you know that aid to India is due to stop next year. Ideally we shouldn't have been given aid in the first place but we have been for many years and maybe the hardship created by stopping immediately could have been devastating for the areas that were receiving aid hence the reason it has been phased out over time. Despite the space programme and growing economy, I understand that India has some of the poorest areas in the world. Take India out of the equation and therefore removing the favourite soundbite of those against any foreign aid, and which other countries in the top ten that receive aid to you believe don't need it?

"Which other countries don't need it"

It has emerged that six of the eight countries receiving the largest packages of British aid are set to launch their own space programmes.
Critics have demanded to know why some of the poorest countries in Africa and Asia were spending millions on space programmes while still receiving aid money.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...six-nations-with-space-ambitions-8755751.html

Britain is sending more than £2million in aid to Argentina – even as Buenos Aires cranks up its hostility over the Falklands.

A report revealed that the amount of taxpayers’ cash spent on foreign development projects has soared by 65 per cent over the last decade to a massive £8.3billion last year.
The increase is more than double that of the G8 group of nations, made up of the UK, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, Italy, Canada and the US, as a whole.

Countries including China, Russia, Brazil, Iceland and Barbados are benefiting from funds intended to help the world’s poorest, despite a pledge for it to go only to the neediest.

Among the schemes being paid for are a Turkish television channel, a scheme promoting tourism in Iceland’s national park, and a hotel training waiters in the tourist destination of Barbados.

The situation was described by one MP as “farcical” last night. The Government is now under pressure to reform aid spending - and to axe a commitment to increase it at a time when every other area of government bar the NHS is due to be cut.

 

[drew]

"Which other countries don't need it"

It has emerged that six of the eight countries receiving the largest packages of British aid are set to launch their own space programmes.
Critics have demanded to know why some of the poorest countries in Africa and Asia were spending millions on space programmes while still receiving aid money.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...six-nations-with-space-ambitions-8755751.html

Britain is sending more than £2million in aid to Argentina – even as Buenos Aires cranks up its hostility over the Falklands.

A report revealed that the amount of taxpayers’ cash spent on foreign development projects has soared by 65 per cent over the last decade to a massive £8.3billion last year.
The increase is more than double that of the G8 group of nations, made up of the UK, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, Italy, Canada and the US, as a whole.

Countries including China, Russia, Brazil, Iceland and Barbados are benefiting from funds intended to help the world’s poorest, despite a pledge for it to go only to the neediest.

Among the schemes being paid for are a Turkish television channel, a scheme promoting tourism in Iceland’s national park, and a hotel training waiters in the tourist destination of Barbados.

The situation was described by one MP as “farcical” last night. The Government is now under pressure to reform aid spending - and to axe a commitment to increase it at a time when every other area of government bar the NHS is due to be cut.

OK, hold up my hand and admit I need to read up a bit more on this subject. Agree that countries with space programmes as an example, shouldn't be receiving aid. Also seems clear that some aid is linked to trade!!!

 

[Soulman]

That is disengenuous as, I assume, you know that aid to India is due to stop next year. Ideally we shouldn't have been given aid in the first place but we have been for many years and maybe the hardship created by stopping immediately could have been devastating for the areas that were receiving aid hence the reason it has been phased out over time. Despite the space programme and growing economy, I understand that India has some of the poorest areas in the world. Take India out of the equation and therefore removing the favourite soundbite of those against any foreign aid, and which other countries in the top ten that receive aid to you believe don't need it?

These are a few of the countries that have fighting within, is the aid per year (per million in brackets) going to the needy, or on arms?
Somalia (101)
Yemen (34)
Sudan (33)
Nigeria (161)
Pakistan (212)
Kenya (98)
Uganda (77)
Just a few

 

[Soulman]

OK, hold up my hand and admit I need to read up a bit more on this subject. Agree that countries with space programmes as an example, shouldn't be receiving aid. Also seems clear that some aid is linked to trade!!!

Which is why if you and others like El Pres, read the full statement by Farage on foreign aid, you would not come out with the sweeping statement that UKIP want to cut all foreign aid.
Personally i want foreign aid to continue to go to the PEOPLE that need it, which is why when i see food, water and shelter being distributed and not a wad of cash given to dodgy governments/countries, i have no problem.

 

[cunning fergus]

I don't need to prove it, I'm the one countering your argument that is seeking to suggest a large number of them are disenfranchised and turning to UKIP - I merely stated that that isn't the case, we know this because UKIP have 1 seat, we'll have to wait until May to prove that either way. But you just twist it round so you argue the same thing I am putting to you, and just evade what is being put to you.

Only the fact that you do….

Again, you try to twist the point. I said I detest the referencing of historical events for political gain - this is quite different from referencing history in an analysis of politics. One is propaganda, the other is intellect.

There is no fact in this other than your imagination. You cannot wager what you think a consensus of people would or do think. You simply don't know, and that is why your whole argument falls flat on its face.

This exchange started because a poster highlighted that the demographic of UKIP voters were white, old, working class and uneducated. I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment of the demographic and neither do you.

If however people want to direct their venom at this demographic for voting UKIP, (as oppose to understanding why they are voting for UKIP), then accept it WILL include ww2 veterans and their families. We both accept that point too, we just don't know the numbers. You think its tiny and irrelevant, I don't.

As I said in my first post on this, attacking the voters (whoever they are) is playing the man not the ball. It is evident that significant numbers of voters turning to UKIP are ex Labour and Tory..........in the past the leadership of both parties have accused UKIP voters of being racists and fruit cakes.

If Miliband and Cameron think that is still the right strategy, then we will not hear that either party is hardening its stance on immigration, or changing it's relationship with the EU........stuff like that.

I will have a bet with you that they will do exactly that...........if of course they haven't already.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I'm racist am I? Care to back that up with some evidence?

i don't know about racist, but you seem to have misplaced your sense of humour there.

 

[cunning fergus]

Wrong, immigrant tax receipts outweigh the money they take out. You look at a sector like University education, it is largely funded by foreign students

The immigrants aren't crippling local services, lack of investment is.

You can't prove this, because the data doesn't exist........for example the children of immigrants (born in the UK or otherwise) are not contributors, however their impact is never calculated.

We have had a baby boom driven by immigration in last 10 years, and anything between 33 and 25% of births in the UK are to non British mothers. This is not factored in on the negative side.

Add in the 3m or so immigrants who have taken up British citizenship and their impact is off account, whether they contribute or not is now moot.

Nice try though.......

 

[drew]

These are a few of the countries that have fighting within, is the aid per year (per million in brackets) going to the needy, or on arms?
Somalia (101)
Yemen (34)
Sudan (33)
Nigeria (161)
Pakistan (212)
Kenya (98)
Uganda (77)
Just a few

Very much a dilemma,. The people needing aid are probably not the ones fighting. Give money and some will be skimmed off by corruption. Send in aid workers and you risk what happened to Alan Henning.

 

[Soulman]

I'm racist am I? Care to back that up with some evidence?

Badfish normally manages to squeeze the old and trusted "racist" quip into his posts, sometimes as many as 4 times, i think he's sponsored personally.
Perhaps he's a tad racist against the English.....oh no we can't have that eh.