Yep agreed. So perhaps if no cash was given then the skimming off for weapons would diminish, less innocent people would die. Then just drop aid on a regular basis. Surely the death toil through fighting and famine would see a significant drop.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
UKIP are now a parliamentary party
- Thread starter Juan Albion
- Start date
Yep agreed. So perhaps if no cash was given then the skimming off for weapons would diminish, less innocent people would die. Then just drop aid on a regular basis. Surely the death toil through fighting and famine would see a significant drop.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Yes, I think most people do when someone accuses them of being racist. Even in jest.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,201
Don't be racist.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.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,201
WotchaEvening sport.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,201
My apologies buzzer, just a joke.
Ok let's start with Russia, Iceland and Brazil.
Don't worry I am not going anywhere. I will still be around to set you 'racist' fellas straight.
Well here is a woman. I give you Diane Abbott
Don't worry it's from the good old Guardian "Choosing to fight the 2015 general election on a Ukip agenda will not work. And the danger is that, in trying to move right on immigration, we will alienate other voters. Many of the seats Labour needs to win in order to claim victory in 2015 are only in play because of the number of black and ethnic minority voters in them. But Labour cannot, at the same time, be in Thurrock wringing its hands about immigrants and be in Mitcham and Morden begging the same immigrants to vote for them."
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-core-voters-defect-ukip-diane-abbott-clacton
Too simple. What weapons were used for the massacre in Rwanda!
Have you any better suggestions?. Surely by not giving up to 150m in cash will limit the weapons and limit the killings, what would you suggest.
OK, you didn't use the exact phrase, "They are a party for racists". What you did say was - and I quote - "There are plenty of parties out there who are, for want of a better phrase, anti-Europe and come without the tag of being a party for racists and xenophobes". I rest my case.
I can see that you are fervently against UKIP and all you think it stands for, so I agree that discussion with you is pointless.
Whichever. It's still a cost we can do without.
Home Secretaries have to seek re-election. Officials in Brussels don't (and never were elected in the first place).
Well. From 2013.
Britain is to give £16m in aid to Rwanda after support for the country was suspended amid claims that its rulers were linked to militias accused of rape and murder.
The cash will be channelled direct to humanitarian agencies rather than paid to the Rwandan government as originally planned.
They had planned in November to give Rwanda £21m, but Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, decided to withhold the cash.
Ms Greening said yesterday: “This reprogrammed development spend will be channelled through projects that directly reach and protect the poorest people in Rwanda.”
She said money would be targeted on 500,000 Rwandans living in extreme poverty and to pay for almost two million school textbooks. It will also support aid agencies working in refugee camps.
If you're saying that aid shouldn't be given to many governments because they can't be trusted I'm in agreement. If you're saying that the UK government shouldn't give aid to those suffering in Africa and many other impoverished places then I'm in disagreement.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,885
Personally speaking it seems odd to me that a country which has the debt levels that we do, and has to constantly borrow money to keep our services going, is giving any money away? We spend more on servicing our debts now than we do in the entire defence budget.
Borrowing money to give away is ludicrous, no matter how laudable the cause, because it's a bad deal for the taxpayer.
No doubt the tens of thousands of teachers, NHS workers or other civil servants could reflect on that when they go on strike............as may the 40,000 or so in the armed services who have recently lost their jobs.
Well we have to fund tax cuts for the rich somehow. 76% of MP's are millionaires, they look after their own.
If you are happy for those suffering from Ebola to die and those living in extreme poverty to have no education or future then vote for a party that stops foreign aid, it's your democratic right and choice to do so.
Surely if you read my last few posts you would not feel the need to ask that question, unless you like to blindly post to get your point over.
I'll give you a clue, just one post Soulman 442 quote:
"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. "
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,885
Tell me the numbers........if there is just one ww2 veteran voting for UKIP then I am right, and even more so the more that there are. You analysis on the other hand is absurd, all the 85 year olds plus are progressive liberals still sticking by the establishment, it's only their darstedly children that are voting UKIP.
I made no assumption about your family, I made an assumption about you.........stereotyping and generalising about a generation that "appears" to be voting for UKIP. The fact is you don't know this unequivocally either..........it's just an irrational prejudice that you have.
Ironic because you no doubt would hate to think of yourself as having irrational prejudice...........that's the preserve of those voting for UKIP right?
As for whether economic isolation is the right path, if the choice is between that and chaining ourselves to the economic corpse that is the European Union, then show me the door please. In fact I would suggest the on the contrary to your view, history actually proves that becoming involved in continental affairs has been disastrous for the UK. You should look up the foreign policy of Disreali and the Marquess of Salisbury........I think "splendid isolation" was a term coined in Lewes.
As for democracy spare me the pathetic whataboutarry, the entire UK electorate has a vote to decide the PM and Govt, it's not perfect, but don't compare it to the politburo that exists in the EU and the process for electing the head of the law making executive.
The fact you seem to support such a system which denies the electorate influence takes you way off the liberal scale politically............I suspect you wouldn't like where it puts you (clue UKIP voters are to your left).
I'm not having a go at you, Africa is institutionally corrupt, but it's not alone in this.
The UK has committed to contribute 0.7% of GNI in foreign aid. That works out at £1 per week for a taxpayer on average earnings. I'm normally the first to have a pop at Cameron but spending by the Tories is higher than under Labour. If you consider this to be too high then fair enough.
However the devil is as always in the detail. What qualifies as overseas aid is murky, with a lot of it being sliced and diced by UK consultants, overseas governments bureaucracy and questionable projects (such as hydroelectric dams, military projects and so on).