We do not give out overseas aid from the goodness of our hearts mate and it is strongly linked with trade and influence.
India has a space program better than ours,why does Iran need it, look up who gets it its a joke, 5 million to support a girl band, and the people who divide it up have all become millionaires at our expense. our commitment is higher than any other european country, and the tin pot countries we give it too the cash is stolen before it can do any good.
As I say, it is not for their benefit, but ours and is linked to trade and influence of global institutions such as the IMF and World Bank who use the money to have influence in those regions.
and like i say we get nowt out of it .halving it would bring this country up no end charity begins at home mate
I dare bet we get a hell of a lot out of it..As I say, we do not do this from the goodness of our hearts..
They borrowed way more than that by the way. Though I'm sure some of it was for that, My point has nothing to do with what it was borrowed for. If it was needed it was needed. Tories had every opportunity to cost it and they didn't, instead they made promises in their manifesto they couldn't keep, had no intention of keeping imo. That Manifesto was a laughing stock, what they didn't fail to deliver they uturned on. Don't trust them. Their neglect to this country is visible in every walk of life. They could have taxed the rich while they were cutting the poor so everybody sacrificed and everything would have been much better but they ****ed up, they didn't. Out of their own middle class greed. Now the rich has to be hit extra hard to save our infrastructure cause there's nowhere else to get the money from. That's the bottom line for me personally.
i respectfully disagree, the deal was done to make Blair look good on the world stage, he should have kept it to what the rest of Europe contribute per country. 12 effin billion ridiculous, plus he cost us millions going to war WOMD, bollocks none were found total lies the guy was a cretin, same as Corbint
This article explains better than I can explain how giving foreign aid has long term financial benefits for us.. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...SDxJCUjB3PPiAAWTg&sig2=kZnAI6Muh9myOaQ5bATc9Q
If we abandoned these countries by withdrawing aid, you can bet your last shilling the Chinese would just fill the gap. They already trade missions in the South Pacific Islands in this area. Since the US dropped the free trade agreement recently the Chinese have stepped in. They may not be popular but their guaranteed trade is.
[QUOTE="Nostalgic, post: 10612280, member: 1016397"]If we abandoned these countries by withdrawing aid, you can bet your last shilling the Chinese would just fill the gap. They already trade missions in the South Pacific Islands in this area. Since the US dropped the free trade agreement recently the Chinese have stepped in. They may not be popular but their guaranteed trade is.[/QUOTE] im not advocating stopping it mate, if you read my comments its halve it that's still 6billion to aid is more than enough
im not advocating stopping it mate, if you read my comments its halve it that's still 6billion to aid is more than enough[/QUOTE] Fully understand the economic argument Rog, but if we don't maintain it then a shift in power or attitude will never come back.
NHS crisis: 19 hospitals face axe as doctors accuse Government of deliberate underfunding please log in to view this image The Johnston Press investigation is one of the largest news investigations into the future of the NHS ever undertaken please log in to view this image Cahal Milmo, Aasma Day, Don Mort, Chris Burn, Ruby Kitchen, Paul Lynch, Ben Fishwick, Philip Bradfield, Deborah Punshon19:01Monday February 13th 2017 The NHS is facing its biggest shake up in a generation with nearly 20 hospitals marked for closure and care from cradle to grave put through a wholesale overhaul to plug a £22bn black hole in health service funding, an investigation by i can reveal. An analysis of the 44 regional blueprints drawn up by health service leaders to remodel the NHS in England – in a process which critics complain has largely bypassed patients – has revealed for the first time the extent of the cuts and drastic changes in the delivery of care that the Government wants to achieve by March 2021. Until their recent release, the plans were a closely guarded secret with health chiefs instructing managers to keep draft details out of the public domain to prevent “politically sensitive” changes from leaking out. The final documents are in some cases so riddled with jargon and vague assertions that clinicians and politicians have said the impact of the plans is unknown. Our findings include: :: The proposed or likely closure of 19 hospitals, including five major acute hospitals. :: The closure of more than 2,000 beds in acute and community hospitals and the loss of nearly 3,000 jobs to create a “smaller, more agile” workforce. :: Major re-organisations of emergency and maternity care. :: A massive move to “out-of-hospital” care with patients encouraged to manage their own health needs, aided by technology which may include “virtual doctors”. Primary care “hubs” will bring health services closer to home – in one case potentially using libraries to see patients. :: Hundreds of millions of pounds are to be saved by cutting prescription costs and in some cases rationing care or operations. In north east London, managers are considering a rule that specialist beds are restricted to those who require a minimum stay of 48 hours. :: A drastic reduction in face-to-face outpatient appointments with doctors using video links to assess and discharge patients. :: A wildly-varying deficit per head of population. In the Durham, Darlington and Tees area the amount that needs to be saved by 2021 is £216 per capita but in Surrey Heartlands the amount is more than triple at £768.Far-reaching changes But an in-depth review of the proposals by the Johnston Press Investigation Unit, in consultation with professional bodies, shows the far-reaching nature of the changes which supporters say are necessary to produce a viable NHS designed to refocus the health service on community care. Doctors’ leaders have told this paper that the NHS is being “deliberately underfunded” and the changes amount to a charter for cuts and creeping privatisation which together pose a threat to the founding ideals of a free at the point of delivery health service. Consultation Known as Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs), the plans represent the fruit of more than a year of consultations between more than 440 NHS organisations and 152 local authorities. But despite a timetable that is due to see them finalised by April, with far-reaching consequences for some 55 million people, the documents are almost unknown to the public. A survey last month found that six out of seven people have never heard of the STPs, prompting warnings that the shake up is being pushed through without meaningful consultation or consent. Campaigners have told i that they also have serious concerns about the legality of the blueprints. “We are being asked for too much and are being deliberately underfunded.” Dr Mark Porter, BMAThe sweeping changes to balance the books of a health service struggling to cope with its worst winter crisis on record brought accusations from doctors’ leaders that they amount to a ploy to hollow out the NHS while shifting blame away from ministers onto health service chiefs. Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the British Medical Association, told i: “We are being asked for too much and are being deliberately underfunded. What this means is our inability to deliver on our promise to patients of a comprehensive service that meets the needs of everyone, when they need it, free of charge. “We have increased numbers of patients while resources are not rising in the same way. They are deliberately cutting into the service we provide rather than streamlining services. What is being asked goes far beyond efficiency savings and dips into the area of cuts.” Community services At the heart of the 44 blueprints is a strategy to move the fulcrum of the NHS away from hospitals to a new set of community services integrated with social care. Analysis of the documents shows that specialist care from stroke services to major trauma will be in many cases centralised to fewer units, where research suggests the results for patients can be improved despite longer journeys. But the STPs make clear such changes cannot be brought about without significant changes to hospital provision, including closures. Some 44 per cent of the blueprints contain plans for the consolidation of services on fewer hospital sites. Closure In South West London, where one of five major acute hospitals is marked for closure, the STP makes its case bluntly. It states: “Clinicians do not believe that we will be able to recruit or pay for sufficient workforce to deliver seven-day services at five acute sites.” Community hospital provision is also facing significant reductions with plans for the closure or redesignation of sites from Cumbria to Devon. Campaigners argue the end result will be a move to a health insurance-based model of care. Deborah Harrington of the National Health Action Party, said: “The STP plans are pushing the NHS into the US model of ‘medicare’. We will have fewer hospitals and reduced access to qualified staff. The NHS will become a provider of last resort.” Backing The plans to change to a health service focused on preventing serious illness and moving care into the community while centralising services in acute hospitals have also received backing from clinicians and policy makers. The left-leaning IPPR think-tank said many of the reforms proposed in the STPs “deserve a fair hearing” while at the same time calling on the Government to close the NHS funding gap by creating a ring-fenced “NHS tax” funded by a 1p rise in National Insurance. A poll for Sky News last week found that 68 per cent of people would support such a tax rise, with a similar proportion arguing that the NHS is getting worse. “There is a funding crisis in the NHS but the answer to that is not a return to the original model of the health service paid for with extra money.” Harry Quilter-Pinner, the IPPR‘Nobody really wants to spend time in hospitals’ Harry Quilter-Pinner, a health specialist at the IPPR, said: “There is a funding crisis in the NHS but the answer to that is not a return to the original model of the health service paid for with extra money. “There is evidence that treatment can be moved nearer to home and improve access and quality of life for patients. Despite the opposition that hospital reforms generate, nobody really wants to spend time on them. But these changes must be funded and the Government should support STP leaders rather than play a blame game with those in charge of the NHS.” NHS England has set April as the deadline for its transformation plans to be finalised. Titanic crisis But those who work for it warn the STPs amount to a “gamble” with the service’s future. Dr David Wrigley, a Lancashire GP, said: “All the STPs are doing is moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic and they are not going to resolve the current crisis facing the NHS. There is a real gamble being taken with the NHS as these plans keep talking about moving care from hospitals into the community. But problem is there is no leeway – social care is collapsing, general practice is on its knees and that’s all on top of the hospital service being in meltdown.” A Department of Health spokesperson said: “We are committed to the NHS — that’s why we have invested £10 billion in its own plan to transform services and improve standards of care, including almost £4 billion this year. “NHS England are introducing Sustainability and Transformation Plans to help ensure the best standards of care, with local doctors, hospitals and councils working together in conjunction with local communities for the first time.” An NHS England spokesperson said: “The number of people seeking urgent care is on the rise so overall we expect the range of services available to them to expand over coming years. Within that overall expansion, it may be possible to improve care and save lives with some concentration of specialist urgent services. “This approach has increased the chances of surviving a major trauma in this country by 50 per cent, and only today the Stroke Association have called for more concentration of stroke units to improve outcomes.” Responding to the investigation, a Department of Health spokesperson said: “We totally reject any analysis suggesting mass closures of services – these plans are about local clinicians and health leaders improving cancer care, transforming mental health provision and delivering better access to GPs. “Any changes in this vein will have to be based on clear evidence that they deliver better care for patients, and will be subject to robust scrutiny by NHS England before being finalised.”
Labour have got this like. Cnuts I'm not going to be around today but play nice please, I know emotions are running high.
take care marra.. I may argue until I'm blue in the teeth over politics, but I would never fall out with people over it as some of my best friends would testify..
Hope or Despair? For the record I never voted for Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party and strongly opposed his ‘off the cuff talks’ with terrorist groups such as Hamas and the IRA. However, after listening to all what he has said on these subjects, and he has met the onslaught of the predominantly Tory mainstream media head on regarding this, I do believe that he did talk to these people for honourable reasons in order to try and develop common ground for peaceful settlements. As for this election, all the Tories are offering is more of the same, which has seen local government, police and fire services cut to the bone, whilst the deficit has doubled and the rich have had tax cuts. There is nothing of hope that the Tories are offering and just repeat the slogan “Strong and Stable” which means absolutely nothing.. As for UKIP, I hear people saying they are the only ones who will secure our borders. In reality, when questioned, even they admit that immigration is absolutely essential for the nation. What they fail to tell us is as massive advocates of the free and open market they will go for the cheapest option for foreign labour, which in reality means with the end of people coming over from the EU, we will get the cheaper option of workers coming from Africa and Asia. I somehow don’t think this is what the majority of UKIP supporters actually want! I also hear people saying that UKIP are the only party to save our children and grandchildren’s future! They are a party full of climate change deniers for goodness sake and would pull out and reverse all of the schemes and agreements for renewable energy and carbon reductions. This poses a far greater long-term danger to our offspring than terrorism ever will. The SNP are a one trick pony independence party and a vote for them is in essence helping the Tories stay in national government. No more to be said really. Labour, however, are offering a total change of direction, and will increase taxes to those that can afford it to invest in our infrastructure and services. Will it be a resounding success? Who knows, but at least it is a change of direction from the utterly failing policies of our current government. This is why I will be voting Labour this Thursday as I believe they are the party of hope as opposed to despair, but regardless of your politics, if you are my friend today you will still be my friend on Friday morning, as my friendship transcends politics..
