Forum menu
You could tell from the announcement of the cuts in aid by Lammy that he knew he was talking pure horseshit. Reminded me rather of Cable and seing Royal mail.
Either he has to say what he knows is a load of nonsense or resign but you could tell he didn't believe a word of it
Just apply the Tory test:
Is the decision to reduce foreign aid spending one driven by necessity or ideology?
Guardian have published an article on a wide scale YouGov poll on attitudes to immigration.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/q7m1sWJ9/Screenshot-20250227-071430.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/q7m1sWJ9/Screenshot-20250227-071430.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
Just apply the Tory test:
Is the decision to reduce foreign aid spending one driven by necessity or ideology?
Ideology. The stupid adherence to the household budget analogy for the uk. Its ideology and neoliberalism that prevents them spending money.
Ideology. The stupid adherence to the household budget analogy for the uk.
I am not sure it is so much as just using it as an excuse to pander to the hard right and try and appear more reform like.
If they are going to nick reform ideas they could at least go for the more intelligent ones like reducing the interest payments to banks for the reserves, mostly created by quantative easing. Possibly not at the reform levels but at those suggested by the FT campaign. Would bring us into line with the European Central Bank and the Japanese central banks.
So not exactly radical policy.
The stupid adherence to the household budget analogy for the uk.
You are Liz Truss, and I claim my five pounds. It's weird how folks outside govts (or radical politicians inside govts for that matter) always claim that finding more money is always incredibly easy to find/create/spend with zero malign side-effects, and yet here we are...Plus of course the idea that politicians (of all people) should have access to unlimited funds always strikes me as the equivalent of giving an arsonist a book of matches and a can of petrol.
You could tell from the announcement of the cuts in aid by Lammy that he knew he was talking pure horseshit.
Well if he looked shifty that is hardly surprising, at the forefront of his mind must have been that interview he had given the Guardian only two weeks earlier in which he talked about the "big strategic mistake" of cutting USAID.
Like Starmer David Lammy was previously a barrister so he should be able to make claims in public which he knows not to be true whilst still maintaining a straight face.
Is the decision to reduce foreign aid spending one driven by necessity or ideology?
No not ideology, unless his ideology over the issue changed completely during the period of a couple of weeks. At the beginning of February he obviously recognised the value of soft power which international aid brings and the risk of handing that over to China (unless he was lying then) You have to assume that he is still does.
And not "necessity" either because 40% of 0.5% GDP is obviously not the only money available to a government looking to increase defence spending. What it is is a straightforward choice.
The decision by Labour to reduce international aid by exactly the same amount as they pledged to increase it by in their election manifesto 8 months ago is driven by the fact that they really don't know what they are doing.
Under Starmer Labour have never had a clear vision beyond winning a general election, and the strategy for achieving that was based on the Tories handing it to them on a plate.
The current Labour government is like a rudderless ship and as a consequence it is becoming increasingly impossible to predict how they will behave or what they will say. It all depends on the currents.
Btw I reckon that David Lammy fits in nicely into this chaotic situation as I have always considered him to be something of a loose cannonball. He has repeatedly made the headlines due to idiotic comments, such as when he denounced Comic Relief for promoting a "white saviour" mentality. So on the face of it at least he should be celebrating any reduction in Western aid.
Double post
Idiotic?
Yes you heard correctly. I am suggesting that publicly attacking Comic Relief, a charitable event which has raised £millions for good causes, because you didn't like one segment with one particular celebrity, is idiotic.
Other opinions are available
The current Labour government is like a rudderless ship and as a consequence it is becoming increasingly impossible to predict how they will behave or what they will say. It all depends on the Currents
I'm starting to believe this now. (Although I said they were rudderless many times.)
Not being driven by anything particularly useful or having a solid gameplan- or even understanding how your own finances work. It just puts you in a position of reacting to everything in the most bizarre fashion.
They really do need to remove those stupid fiscal rules. They were made up to appear prudent but they've satisfied no one. Of course they're not prudent though because as we found out last week you have to make a case to cut foreign-aid over defense. Nothing prudent about it. You've made a sacrifice because you believe (incorrectly) the currency you issue is in limited supply.
It makes no sense at all to box your choices in as per the right-wing would do.
For too long society has fallen to the mythical shenanigans of the 'market place' (remember the bond market is enabled by government and could be turned off without issue for spending) and believing the private sector funds the state. This threat has regressed us to simplify accepting decay as built-in, and normal because of black-holes etc.
We can all see the mess around us. There's only one way to correct this and it's not what Labour are doing currently.
Only today the top guy at the BDA was saying on the radio that the current government is not making enough in-roads into dental appointments for the NHS. Because action in this area would be a problem for whom?
If this was a science experiment - based on current outcomes everyone half-sensible would be pushing for a way to correct all this with government tools - massive investment, taxing wealth for getting their control in check and re-wiring society to make it better.
But it requires some proper solid politics and economic thinking. We just don't have that in Starmer. He's not even pragmatist - he's just a ridiculous puppet with not a consistent thought in his head that will lose the battle with the current trajectory.
(Also Reeves is quiet currently. Hope she's reflecting on what she's about to do come spring.l
The current Labour government is like a rudderless ship and as a consequence it is becoming increasingly impossible to predict how they will behave or what they will say. It all depends on the Currents
I'm starting to believe this now. (Although I said they were rudderless many times.)
Not being driven by anything particularly useful or having a solid gameplan- or even understanding how your own finances work. It just puts you in a position of reacting to everything in the most bizarre fashion.
They really do need to remove those stupid fiscal rules. They were made up to appear prudent but they've satisfied no one. Of course they're not prudent though because as we found out last week you have to make a case to cut foreign-aid over defense. Nothing prudent about it. You've made a sacrifice because you believe (incorrectly) the currency you issue is in limited supply.
It makes no sense at all to box your choices in as per the right-wing would do.
For too long society has fallen to the mythical shenanigans of the 'market place' (remember the bond market is enabled by government and could be turned off without issue for spending) and believing the private sector funds the state. This threat has regressed us to simplify accepting decay as built-in, and normal because of black-holes etc.
We can all see the mess around us. There's only one way to correct this and it's not what Labour are doing currently.
Only today the top guy at the BDA was saying on the radio that the current government is not making enough in-roads into dental appointments for the NHS. Because action in this area would be a problem for whom?
If this was a science experiment - based on current outcomes everyone half-sensible would be pushing for a way to correct all this with government tools - massive investment, taxing wealth for getting their control in check and re-wiring society to make it better.
But it requires some proper solid politics and economic thinking. We just don't have that in Starmer. He's not even a pragmatist - he's just a ridiculous puppet with not a consistent thought in his head that will lose the battle with the current trajectory.
(Also Reeves is quiet currently. Hope she's reflecting on what she's about to do come spring.l
Other opinions are available
Including those of Sir Lenny Henry if you read the link...
More good news. I'm sure the usual suspects will be along soon to explain what amazing plans Labour has to reverse youth unemployment. Starmer could conscript them into his new army with all this new defence money.
Other opinions are available
Including those of Sir Lenny Henry if you read the link...
I've never heard it referred to as 'white saviours' before but that is quite apt.
Sending wealthy white celebs to Africa and other impoverished places to act as heroes is an idea decades past its sell by date.
Even in the mid-2000's when friends were going volunteering abroad to do things like "build schools" (having never been on a building site in their lives), there was mainstream recognition among my peer group that there was a degree of implied white supremacism inherent in that activity: as if simply being white was all it took to be a hero to these poor foreigners.
I'm sure the far right and many boomers will somehow manage to be offended by the idea that it should stop, but Lammy was absolutely right.
Including those of Sir Lenny Henry
Of course.
Would you like me to provide a list of all the other idiotic comments our Foreign Secretary David Lammy has made, it is surprisingly extensive?
Have you heard the one about Henry VII succeeding Henry VIII, or the one about the BBC being racist for mentioning white and black smoke during a conclave?
Other opinions are available
Including those of Sir Lenny Henry if you read the link...
I've never heard it referred to as 'white saviours' before but that is quite apt.
Sending wealthy white celebs to Africa and other impoverished places to act as heroes is an idea decades past its sell by date.
Even in the mid-2000's when friends were going volunteering abroad to do things like "build schools" (having never been on a building site in their lives), there was mainstream recognition among my peer group that there was a degree of implied white supremacism inherent in that activity: as if simply being white was all it took to be a hero to these poor foreigners.
I'm sure the far right and many boomers will somehow manage to be offended by the idea that it should stop, but Lammy was absolutely right.
off topic, but when I lost my mum many years ago, think I was about 25 at the time, I was in a job I didn't like and had some money to spend, so I contacted a charity about help in in the former Yugoslavia - they asked how much volunteering experience I had - I said technically none to speak of, but I'm self funded and I have a pair of hands? and they basicaly weren't interested 🤔
as I have always considered him to be something of a loose cannonball.
The phrase is "loose cannon". A navy thing.
Would you like me to provide a list of all the other idiotic comments our Foreign Secretary David Lammy has made
What? He says something about comic relief that comic relief agrees with and acts on, and that's your example of an idiotic statement?
I think that will do for now.
The former army chief argued it was a false premise that aid and defence were in competition.
Dannatt said: “As General Jim Mattis, the former US secretary of defence, famously put it: ‘If you don’t fund the state department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition, ultimately.’
"Weak states become breeding grounds for terrorism, organised crime, and mass migration crises.”
I don't think Gen Richard Dannatt fully understands politics. At the heart of the decision to massively cut the international aid budget are political calculations which have nothing to do with the security of the UK and everything to do with the success of Labour whilst in government.
First and foremost Labour is facing a very serious political threat from Reform UK which the overwhelming majority of opinion polls now put in the lead. Cutting the international aid budget by 40% almost matches Nigel Farage's commitment to cut it by 50%.
Labour are trying to pull the rug from under Nigel Farage and beat him at his own game. This is just building on the dog-whistling "Labour are tough on immigrants" campaign. Obviously this won't be any more successful than Rishi Sunak's attempt to beat Reform at their game but centrists can't offer any other solutions than a lurge to the right. Aping your right-wing political opponents is the only strategy that centrists have.
Secondly the current Labour government is obsessed with pleasing Donald Trump. Starmer during his very first phone call to the newly installed Donald Trump wasted no time in informing him that he was committed to deregulation and cutting red tape, just like Trump himself is. And now Starmer is informing Trump that just like him he is slashing international aid plus he is increasing defence exactly as he wants him to.
Gen Richard Dannatt is right of course but it is completely irrelevant to current political reality.
The one reoccurring feature of Western foreign policies is that they are always spectacularly short-sighted and invariably come back to bite the West on the arse. Both Starmer and Trump will be history in 5 years time so why should they give a toss?
He says something about comic relief that comic relief agrees with and acts on, and that's your example of an idiotic statement?
He didn't just 'say something about comic relief' he talked about "white saviours", which is an idiotic comment to make. David Lammy is a Harvard educated barrister who enjoys a more comfortable lifestyle than the average white and black persons in the UK and is desperately looking for things to cultivate a chip on his shoulder. And his enthusiasm for doing so was highlighted by the speed with which he was willing to accuse the BBC of racism in reference to white and black conclave smoke.
I consider Lamming to be a gaffe prone loose cannonball. Have you heard him explain how men can develop "cervixes"? Or how he grew up in a family dependent on tax credits despite the fact that tax credits were not introduced until he was 31 years old?
Now he is completely backtracking on what he said only a couple of weeks ago concerning the importance international aid. Still I guess with less USAID and UK aid reaching poor third world countries there will be less of this 'white saviour' attitude, so he should be happy about that.
You are aware that the ‘foreign aid’ budget was funnelled by the last government mainly being used for paying for asylum seeker accommodation?
So our ‘foreign aid’ budget mostly ended up with hotel chains, whoever owned the Bibby Stockholm and the Rwandan government
So our ‘foreign aid’ budget mostly ended up with hotel chains, whoever owned the Bibby Stockholm and the Rwandan government
No one told the former head of the British army Gen Richard Dannatt?
Although luckily "the last government" is no longer in charge so that is obviously not relevant.
More good news on the NHS as meaningful steps taken towards ending the awful practice of the "8am scramble" for appointments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7ee895nr0o
Getting a GP appointment was such a dehumanising experience for so many people, at a point in time when they're often naturally worried about some aspects of their health - great to see Labour tackling real issues and making progress.
Although luckily "the last government" is no longer in charge so that is obviously not relevant.
Does the slate get wiped clean at the start of a new parliamentary term then comrade? Is it like a video game where you just go back to level one and start again?
Anyway…. some more terrible news for you to and the rest of the forum misanthropes to moan about…
If you ban a bonus, they'll just put it on the salary. Re-nationalisation is the only answer.
More good news on the NHS as meaningful steps taken towards ending the awful practice of the "8am scramble" for appointments.
...great to see Labour tackling real issues and making progress.
There isn't an agreement on anything, except in principle.
The Government now have about a fortnight to commit to a complete renegotiation of GPs contracts in the face of an August ballot that was 98% in favour of collective action.
"More good news..." by roli case "Dr Bramall-Stainer told BBC Breakfast general practice had been pushed to "desperation point" over the last 15 years - with "thousands" of GPs leaving." from the BBC link^^
While it is naive to think that banning bonuses won't just be worked around it is also naive to expect any difference if nationalised. Water and sewage are basically too cheap for what is involved with it yet everyone expects it to be cheap. If could have more money by charging more or it could have more money by having it direct from government funding if nationalised. The latter is better as it could be taken from national pot, i.e. poorer people don't need to pay more but it would still need to be given the budget which we no doubt cannot afford.
Re-nationalisation is the only answer.
I couldn’t agree more. How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though.
How do you actually go about doing that? It’s not like the rail companies who are on time limited franchises that will come to an end. That’s a serious question by the way. I have absolutely no idea.
Anyway…. some more terrible news for you to and the rest of the forum misanthropes to moan about…
A misanthrope might be better described as the Liberal that rounds the edges of failed privatisation so struggling families still have to pay higher bills rather than put an essential service in state hands so they can be accountable and fully funded.
(A natural monopoly can't benefit from market forces when you can't choose your supplier.)
It's basic stuff and no amount of slight adjustments of the way capitalism rewards the boss of our most essential service fixes that basic problem.
It's not just about being cheap, it's an environmental and public health issue. When I told a Spanish ecologist what was going on here he couldn't believe it. My word, it's amazing what people have been forced to tolerate.
I couldn’t agree more. How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though.
It's not a tough one at all.
Mostly the finances of the nationalising water companies estimated over generously at 80-90bn.
Realistically probably less. (As low as 14.7bn if you do some shrewd accounting. Which the government could do )
Government gets an asset to balance some of that off.
Paying dividends whilst running up debts is absolutely ridiculous. Having a profit whilst increasing debt is no way to run a company.
I've said before the public either pays through higher and higher bills or the government simply bloody buys it.
Customers now pay for servicing the debt that Thames Water have run up. It's absolutely stupid.
Or let's just wait for it to go bankrupt. Then take it.
Political will.
It's a false market anyway.
Does the slate get wiped clean at the start of a new parliamentary term then comrade?
So let me get this right, you are claiming that the government is cutting International Aid by 40% because "our ‘foreign aid’ budget mostly ended up with hotel chains, whoever owned the Bibby Stockholm and the Rwandan government" and you don't want to see it wasted on asylum seekers when it could be spent on defence?
You are Nigel Farage and I claim my five proud British pounds.
Btw according to your favourite newspaper in 2023, when the Tories were in government, 28% of the international aid budget was going into housing asylum seekers, so even if things have barely changed under Starmer, as you seem to think, that is still a very long way from "mostly".
Sir Keir Starmer is to take UK overseas aid to its lowest level as a percentage of national income since records began, even if he manages to halve the current £4.5bn cost of housing asylum seekers.
The extraordinary finding, a complete reversal of Labour manifesto pledges and its historical commitment to helping the world’s poorest, is made by Ian Mitchell, the co-director of the respected London-based thinktank the Centre for Global Development.
The 'greatest cut in UK overseas aid in history' by definition means greater than any cut carried out by any Tory government.
And yet some people on here who rant endlessly about the Tories, claiming to despise them, will defend Starmer doing a complete reversal of an eight month old manifesto pledge and actually behaving worse than the Tories.
What stunning hypocrisy. And then people scratch their heads trying to figure out why voters have lost confidence in mainstream parties. Although I am sure binners that you will tell me that it's because voters are stupid and gullible.
Although I am sure binners that you will tell me that it's because voters are stupid and gullible.
At the last count it was 52%
How often do you count? Surely the "last count" was July 4th 2024. Do you remember that day when voters were asked who they would like to govern them?
To jolt your memory among the many promises made by Labour was a commitment to increase international aid, which is currently quite a topical issue.
Stupid? I don't think so. Gullible? Probably.
I have lost confidence in mainstream political parties too. Tories were a given but Starmer is ****ing awful and just a liar and hypocrite. I am however not stupid or gullible so won't be switching to Reform as a better bet but many will, you know like that 52%.
Re-nationalisation is the only answer.
What does it achieve though? The debt pile might be made smaller, but the day to day operational costs and all the things that need doing and improving, still need to be paid for. And for those simply stating that the rise in bills directly funds debt servicing, what is the actual percentage of a customer bill that goes to that debt cost (clue: it's not what you think)? I've said this a few times before, and i'm not defending the bad conduct of companies or the clear failures of privatisation, just the choice of medicine being a simple statement of 're-nationalisation'.
There's a multitude of other options and 'middle ways', or compromises to navigate this difficult and complex issue. The current government has no desire to nationalise water, so it's a practical non-starter. If it comes to special administration (which is looking less likely now), then it would be temporary, and only mean underwriting debt for a period of time - bills and the operation of the company would remain as-is.
The actual direction of travel for the water industry will be the outcomes and recommendations from the Cunliffe Review. There will likely be structural changes to the whole industry from this, including regulators and water companies. So we're going to have to wait for that to report back. It's unlikely to recommend nationalisation, as one of the the aims is making the industry 'attract long-term investment'. Whether you agree with that or not, that's the pragmatic outlook for the medium term.
I couldn’t agree more. How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though
Work out how profitable they are based on the amount of tax they paid, then buy them out based on that value.
That would be a great way to incentivise them to play fair with the tax system, but I don't think they would entertain it.
As for SKS... I keep thinking that he's not necessarily Tory-lite, he's just naive and trying deperately to court the voters that _might_ vote Reform by moving to the right, instead of actually doing things that benefit the people he was elected to represent. That and the fact that he is over a barrel with a lot of the large infrastructure projects (Hinkley, Sizewell) thanks to previous governments of both sorts.
I couldn’t agree more. How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though.
Having a profit whilst increasing debt is no way to run a company.
It is if you want to use that borrowed money to invest in infrastructure or productive capital. I appreciate that might not fit with the somewhat esoteric economic theories that you favour.
he talked about "white saviours", which is an idiotic comment to make. David Lammy is a Harvard educated barrister who enjoys a more comfortable lifestyle than the average white and black persons in the UK and is desperately looking for things to cultivate a chip on his shoulder.
Ah, so you've got to be a poor black guy to comment on the white saviour trope?
I consider Lamming to be a gaffe prone loose cannonball.
a deliberate call back to a suicidal Scandinavian rodent/doubling down on your Malapropism?
Have you heard him explain how men can develop "cervixes"? Or how he grew up in a family dependent on tax credits
No, and neither have you though I do recall right wing and anti-trans commentators rounding on his comment when cornered by Nick Robinson, that men can have cervixes. Trans men, obv. What's wrong with that?
Or how he grew up in a family dependent on tax credits
It was income support, a form of tax credit from which his family with five kids in Tottenham benefitted. And a few right wing commentators went ah ha!
Black smoke I'll give you 🙂 Maybe just stick with that as the others put you in some pretty unpleasant company. And if you can't get the sneery asides right, is it possible your skewed vision might be impaired on the other stuff?
It is if you want to use that borrowed money to invest in infrastructure or productive capital. I appreciate that might not fit with the somewhat esoteric economic theories that you favour.
It isnt if you have the government doing the borrowing which, incidentally, as a rule it can do so cheaper than private companies. So if you move away from ideological obsession with private being better you can do better with public investment.
The problem, as with all natural monopolies, is that there is no incentive to invest in infrastructure unless forced by the government. After all its not like I am going to get funding for my start up to install an alternative set of mains is it?
How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though.
I think if they could manage to take over numerous banks who were hundreds of billions in debt and on the brink of collapse in a matter of days they can probably work out how to take over a few water companies. They are the government after all, they can do pretty much anything they want by passing an act of parliament. That's all it would need to privatise the water companies.
The bailout of failing banks was totally different to a nationalisation of solvent water companies. Parliament can't simply expropriate assets from companies without paying compensation to them.
The problem, as with all natural monopolies, is that there is no incentive to invest in infrastructure unless forced by the government.
...which is exactly why the government (actually OFWAT) forces the water companies to invest in infrastructure.
Parliament can't simply expropriate assets from companies without paying compensation to them.
Of course it could, parliament makes the law and they can change it to do anything it wants. Whether they should do that is another question of course. I'm not suggesting that shareholders of solvent companies shouldn't be compensated, but there's no reason they can't do it.