'If you were chancellor, what'd you cut?' poll discussion

Gareth_Lazelle

anglian22 wrote: »

No, I think the role of a government should first and foremost be to put the interests of its' citizens first.

Just to add,

I don't disagree with this bit, but the key to it is in government thinking about its people when it signs treaties, and maybe this one shouldn't have been signed at all or perhaps it shouldn't have been signed in its current form,

Once signed though it is simply breaking a promise to do anything other than our utmost to fulfil it, and breaking it should be seen as the dishonourable act it is (we would soon scream if other countries broke their treaties with us because of their economic downturn),

snooky

cport80 wrote: »

It's kind of hard to accept from a bunch of millionaires that the rest of us need to take pay cuts and job losses. After the recent Dispatches show highlighted them and their billionaire advisor friends avoiding paying huge sums of tax I am unwilling to listen to any more of their justifications for any cuts at all. The phrase "We can't afford it" doesn't sound right coming from such people. Just because tax avoidance is legal doesn't make it morally right. To then tell the country there's no money left in the pot to pay for important things is just plain wrong.

It's irrelevant what their personal financial status is, cuts have to be made and they will have had lots of input and advice from all areas so it's not like Cameron and Osbourne (to whom I assume you refer) have decided the poor can take a hit because it won't affect them or theirs.
Anyone can go into politics and try to reach the top posts. Even you. Criticise politicians on their politics and actions, not their personal life. Your ad hominem attacks are a waste of time (and I don't even like Cameron or Osbourne).

snooky

katmcleod wrote: »

I was quite shocked how many people said overseas aid. We might think we have it hard but think how many kids die because they have no water? We need to keep helping those less fortunate. They need it more than we do. Pay it forward and all that

I agree with aid for those countries who really need it but some countries the previous Government lavished aid on really didn't.

For example, India, which can afford nuclear weapons and it's own space programme which is expected to cost around £800m but for some reason can't afford proper welfare for its own people and has to rely on other countries like the UK.

The UK aid agency, DFID, planned to give India over £825m in aid between 2008-2011, roughly the same amount as the cost of their space programme. India is a country which is already doing very nicely, largely from outsourcing/offshoring jobs which UK taxpayers - the source of this aid - might otherwise be able to do. The Indian economy grew by around 9% in 2009 compared to the pitiful UK GDP.

Let me know if you think that particular aid is a rational use of Government money. Personally I think it's several hundred million we could keep at home.

darkpool

Britain gives the highest % of GDP in aid of any of the G8 nations. We give 0.52% of GDP on overseas aid. Italy gives 0.16%, the US gives 0.2% and Germany 0.35%

I really think Saudia Arabia and Singapore could live without our charity.