The War on Disabled People is an Invitation to Fight Back

[antone]

Before I had the joy and privilege of working for the DWP, I worked for DfID. That was also a wonderful experience.

 

Anyhow, the UK currently spends around 0.6% (three fifths of one percent) of its total National Income (roughly speaking, tax raised and Treasury bonds issued) on overseas aid. If we're broke (and we're not, I assure you) it ain't because we're giving all our money away to foreigners.

 

What we have is a weird situation where our government seems to be acting against our best interests. I don't actually believe that this is malicious, I think it's merely indifferent. The problem our economy faces is, fundamentally, a lack of demand - since lots of people have no money. Screwing over benefit claimants and making them scapegoats for all the perceived ills of our society isn't helping, and neither is laying off government workers and freezing pay for those who are lucky enough to keep their jobs. It wasn't benefit claimants or low-paid civil servants who created this mess.

 

I like to think the best of people, even my political opponents. But in this case, I don't see how I can. Enacting policies that shrink the economy in a time where the lack of demand is the major problem we face? It's just callous.

[antone]

But I am sure the current (approx) £9 billion could be better placed here at the moment. (IMHO)

 

UK budget for overseas aid:-

£8.4bn(Billion) in 2010

£8.7bn in 2011

£9.1bn in 2012

£12bn by 2013

£12.6bn by 2014

 

My understanding is that your figures are more or less correct, increasing aid spending to the target to which the Government has committed, which is 0.7% of GNI. Seriously, this is a non-issue. We spend less than many countries which have weathered the storm better than we have.

 

Also bear in mind that foreign aid spending is not generally altruistic. Oh sure, some small amount is spent on disaster relief like famine in Africa or the SE Asian Tsunami, and personally I think that's fine. But for the most part, aid is offered to develop and support British markets, and to foster goodwill towards us in the hope that any future business might come our way.

 

The figures, of course, could be easily covered by fully collecting the taxes avoided by just one or two of our major corporations. That's even achievable, if our officials want it to happen, and the added advantage is that we wouldn't have to make ourselves international pariahs in the process. Because that sure as heck wouldn't help our economy.

[antone]

So, simply by reducing the overseas aid budget to the 2010 level, we could eradicate the need for any cuts in any benefit to the disabled and long term sick ...

 

No, it doesn't work like that. We give overseas aid so that people will like us and spend money in our country. That sounds crass, but international politics often is - we don't offer this aid because we're nice people (although I like to think that we are) but because it is beneficial to us. A lot of it is "tied" aid anyhow - it's given on condition that it is spent with UK businesses.

 

In short, it's a red herring, a distraction. It's a tiny amount of money, as is the amount to be saved by cuts in benefits. We can afford all of this, and easily - benefits and foreign aid. But our lords and masters have chosen Standards and Poors over us. And like the chumps we are, we fuss over aid, and ignore the elephant in the room: the rich are getting richer on the backs of the poor. Which might be just about OK if the rich were prepared to pay their taxes but, of course, they are not.

[antone]

But the Government keep pushing forward how the spending on unemployment benefit is getting out of control, costing far too much, and that cost is what, approx 5-6 billion?. Certainly less that what is spent on overseas aid.

How many hundreds of thousand in this country being forced to food-banks will it need, before proper aid is given to them?

 

You're assuming good faith. Yes, we could cut foreign aid and for about one year we might manage to cover our JSA costs. After that, well, we'll have screwed up our economy further simply because we won't be doing what other, more humane, nations do and the rest of the world will notice. Let's face it, we are very wealthy - perhaps the sixth or seventh richest nation on the face of the Earth. This idea that we can't afford benefits or foreign aid is simply a political canard.

 

Divide and rule. Apparently it works.

[antone]

These days, I assume nothing!!

 

That is not something I have ever needed to assume.

 

On the first point, your insight serves you well

 

On the second, the reason I object when people bring up foreign aid is that it does immeasurable good for our country, and costs virtually nothing. Various major companies have avoided UK tax, and I'd rather that £8bn went to helping folks in poor nations than going to pay Vodafone's tax bill. The problem isn't that we pay a little bit of money to developing economies in the hope that they'll buy our stuff. The problem is that our very rich leaders keep telling us that we're broke. It's a lie.

[antone]

The defecit is a myth????????

That has to be the strangest thing I have ever read. So CD are you saying that as a country UKPLC has no deficit either historically or current? I am a bit confused as to exactly what you mean?

 

There is a deficit historically to which all parties agree and there is a current deficit because the amount of income the country has is less then its overall spending.

 

Sorry if I have misunderstood but that statement just seems a bit bizarre and not the sort of thing I would have expected you to say, have you been on the waccy baccy:wink:?

 

I can't speak for CD, but of course the deficit isn't a myth. The myth is that the current deficit is a huge, overarching crisis that must be tackled right now and at all costs. Historically it has been bigger and the sky has resolutely refused to fall.

 

What's happening is that the government is using panic-mongering about the deficit as a smokescreen to do what the Tories have always wanted to do - cut benefits, public sector staff, and public spending in general. Now that's OK, reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate levels of taxes, spending and so on. But the government is passing off what is in fact a political desire as an economic necessity.

[antone]

 

Antone are you sure the deficit has been bigger than it currently is, over 1 trillion pounds?

 

In 1997 the debt stood at 352 billion when Uncle Gordon got the boot hadn't it risen to around 850 billion, even after flogging the gold reserves and despite one of the biggest boom times the country had seen? I agree with a lot of Labours values but not their economic values for one minute. They managed to bust us in the 70's and nearly did it again this time, even after inheriting a budget surplus in 97. Can they really be trusted not to do it again, especially with Mr Balls in charge of the coffers?

 

Well, I seriously recommend reading the HuffPo link that CD posted above. It doesn't make sense to talk about the deficit in terms of absolute numbers, or to make a direct comparison in absolute numbers to other countries. The video showing Osborne's apparent ignorance of the fact that, as a proportion of income, we have the lowest deficit in the G7 is pretty instructive. Did he genuinely not know this, or was he hoping that no-one else would notice the deception?

 

Anyhow, I'm loathe to compare the ways countries operate to families or companies, but as a crude example, if my income is £20,000 annually and I owe the bank £10,000, I'd be worried. If my income is £1,000,000 and I owe the bank £50,000, I'd be a lot less worried. In other words, it only makes sense to compare deficits against income. In 1997 the deficit was 42% of GDP - that's what the Tories left. It's now about 35%. So if it wasn't a crisis the day before the 1997 election, why is it a crisis now?

 

As to whether they can be trusted, well, I'm not here to advocate one party over another. But they didn't "bust" us between 1997 and 2010, if the concept of "busting" a nation state can be said to mean anything at all. And by prioritising deficit repayments, the Tories have artificially prolonged the recession, thereby perpetuating the problem they claim to be trying to solve. Who could possibly have guessed that pursuing policies that depress the economy and make people poorer might lead to increases in the deficit?

 

CD feels this is deliberate. I don't know, it might just be ignorance. But it sure as heck isn't clever. Well, unless it actually is deliberate, in which case yes, it's clever, because it's working and people are buying it. That would make make it simply evil.

[antone]

For what it is worth, Labour Libs and Cons are all the same, that's why you get the same results you been getting for the last fourty years, the I vote this or that cause my Dad did.

One day this country will wake to find it is run by say Muslims, then you know what's what. It could also be any other faith, I know I'll be called racist, but that's because if you stand up and say anything for your own kind, this is what happens.

 

Going back to my original question, the Brits have lost the will to fight a cause, our forefathers will be spinning in their graves to see how easy Government and Foreigners find this place easy to take advantage of. But who pays in the end, Indigionsness people do that who.

 

It has nothing to do with Muslims, foreigners, or giant green lizards from the planet Zog. The situation we're in right now is a direct consequence of the actions taken buy our elected representatives.

[antone]

What's being white got to do with it? There are many British Black people and there are many foreign white people.

 

Quite. My wife and I chuckle about this a lot, as she is a foreigner. But of course, she is a white anglophone foreigner, so I guess she's one of the "good" ones that nobody gets upset about.

[antone]

We are giving away too much in foreign aid abroad which is why we still borrow money!!

 

No we aren't and no it isn't. But we've been through this already in the thread - it might be an idea to read back a couple of pages.

[antone]

Bloody hell, this thread is like Groundshog Day at times!

 

"Just wanted to let you know good luck. We're all counting on you."

[antone]

Too funny - giggle!

 

Surely you can't be serious!

[antone]

Sorry. Guess I picked the wrong night to stop sniffing glue.

[antone]

P_Valentine, why is £17+ being deducted from your payments? You're welcome to complain on this thread, but if there's anything the guys can help you with, it would be worth starting a new one so your posts don't get lost in the noise.

[antone]

"Just wanted to let you know good luck. We're all counting on you."

[antone]

Funny, funny, funny! I give up, giggling is bad for me this close to bedtime!!! I just bought the dvd from Amazon - it's all your fault, you know!

 

Hee! Yeah, I have a copy kicking around somewhere. Need to watch it again soon.

[antone]

Bloody hell, this thread is like Groundshog Day at times!

 

::Clock ticks over::

 

"I got you babe"

 

(Can't remember any good lines from that movie, much as I love it.)

[antone]

'This is one time where television fails to capture the true excitement of a large squirrel predicting the weather'

 

Yeah, OK, that wins the thread.

[antone]

Yeah, well, you've got a lot to answer for - now my husband is insisting we watch all three 'Airport' films before we watch 'Airplane'.

 

Oh, but those are great cheesy films. Not intentionally, of course, but still. Doesn't one of them have Charlton Heston swinging in the window of a 747?