Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you agree with him ?🤷♂️" Yes, it is necessary for the UK and Europe to take defence seriously and not rely on the U.S. all the time. Oddly before he only committed to increasing defence spending when the economy would permit it. Seems trumps tactics are working | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Personally (Probably the reason I'm not PM) I would have cut foreign aid further and introduced a 1p tax increase on every £, raising approximately £5.5 billion to strengthen defence even more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it is a start
Personally (Probably the reason I'm not PM) I would have cut foreign aid further and introduced a 1p tax increase on every £, raising approximately £5.5 billion to strengthen defence even more."Fair enough providing it's spent wisely and not wasted on daft projects | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d scrap foreign aid altogether. We should offer proportionate support in line with other countries when there is the occasional major disaster. Otherwise we need to spend our taxes on repairing our own broken country." I hope in time this might happen but without aid will more migrants just want to get to the UK helping them where they are is cost-effective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the foreign aid, why are uk sending this to African states and India who are supporting Putins war Let Russia buy their clean water and support their children. " Pakistan also. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why are we giving aid to India aren't they one of the top ten richest countries?" Uk taxpayer being taken for a ride. Either paying for migrants here or overseas | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d scrap foreign aid altogether. We should offer proportionate support in line with other countries when there is the occasional major disaster. Otherwise we need to spend our taxes on repairing our own broken country." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all very "far right"....."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not terribly impressed with cutting foreign aid, because it's a very useful tool for projecting soft power. . Aid policies and programmes should put the interests and needs of the recipient society first and above all, with any proposed benefit to the UK being transparently articulated and tested against whether it would undermine this principle. . The goal of foreign aid is to co-opt and attract others to our national agenda. I remind folks that the UK was a proponent as well as an enthusiastic signatory to the Sustainable Development Goals (There are 17 of them) which enshrine the ideas of sustainable prosperity and peace. . It's like 2 villages next to each other. One is a model of the SDG and everyone is peaceful and balanced. The other is the complete opposite and chaotic and a threat to the first village. We could in theory militarise, but that carries a cost, and also does not resolve the issue. It can lead to escalation. . Providing the hostile village with aid, on the condition they "align" with our values, deescalates and ultimately removes the threat if they embrace our goals. . The UK received "foreign aid" to the tune of 31.4 Billion Dollars from the USA in 1941-1945. The foreign policy goal of the USA was aid was given free of charge on the basis that such help was essential for the defence of the United States. There was some reverse lend-lease repayment back, that I will not deny. But it worked and it fostered cooperation between the Allies. We aligned to their goals and it strengthened them and us in to the bargain. . This is what foreign aid is about, when used wisely. It is not about propping up regimes we do not agree with. It is about nudging such regimes in to more favourable directions that align with our geopolitcal goals. . By all means, ignore that "village" over there. It doesn't make them "go away", and at the least they'll be indifferent. At the worst, you'll be a target. The threat remains. . There is so much nuance to foreign aid that the average person is unaware of, and it would be better to be more open and transparent to the electorate about it. . If we don't lavish "villages" hostile or indifferent to us, others will. That empowers our enemies. Is that what we want ? Cutting foreign aid will allow others to step in." A lot to go through... If aid is about “aligning others with UK values,” why has many, many years of UK aid failed to turn around hostile governments? The UK did not receive “foreign aid” in WWII, we received Lend-Lease as you point out, which makes your comment confusing?? Do you have details to clear up the confusion? Also cutting foreign aid doesn’t “empower enemies” it literally frees up our domestic resources for defence, infrastructure, and economic growth that actually strengthens the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We received aid from a foreign country. That's foreign aid. Nothing confusing at all about it, and the Lend-Lease Act is will documented and findable online for history buffs. . Diplomatic aid and foreign relations established with all UN Members (excluding Bhutan). Also the UK established official relations with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta on 9 October 2024. . That's a heck of a lot of "soft power" and fingers in many countries pies. . Yes, I know diplomatic aid is not "funds for foreign aid", it's diplomatic, but you can bet money and favours flow as well in to various projects in said countries. Write to Chatham House and ask them for a list. . Cutting foreign aid *does* empower an enemy. Nature abhors a vacuum. It empowers an enemy by giving them an opportunity to step in where we stepped out. . You might think spending the money on your own little village (to use my analogy) helps your own people and strengthens you. If spent wisely it does. But you ignored the hostile village down the road and I'm going to make them an offer they cannot refuse. They align to my values and now I, Village C and your Hostile Village B are best buddies. You cutting aid gave me that opportunity, so thank you for that !" It is not just me that thinks this way, and the same direction is being put forward by the UK defence secretary today, who said we need hard power not soft power. The idea of giving support from the pockets of people who are struggling to pay their bills for "soft power" is pure pie in the sky and has proven to be nonproductive and harmful, the infrastructure of the country is folding in on itself..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A victory for Trump and Vance. Europe has accepted that it has to pay its way for its defence." It's a bit overdue but better late than never.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A victory for Trump and Vance. Europe has accepted that it has to pay its way for its defence. It's a bit overdue but better late than never.." Strange how one man speaking with directness woke up Europe’s leadership in less than six weeks after years of them doing nothing. Can you imagine if these same leaders used the same energy here to resolve all the other domestic issues they have! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A victory for Trump and Vance. Europe has accepted that it has to pay its way for its defence. It's a bit overdue but better late than never.. Strange how one man speaking with directness woke up Europe’s leadership in less than six weeks after years of them doing nothing. Can you imagine if these same leaders used the same energy here to resolve all the other domestic issues they have! " Well put ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A victory for Trump and Vance. Europe has accepted that it has to pay its way for its defence. It's a bit overdue but better late than never.. Strange how one man speaking with directness woke up Europe’s leadership in less than six weeks after years of them doing nothing. Can you imagine if these same leaders used the same energy here to resolve all the other domestic issues they have! " Valid point.. But no I can't, not saying I disagree with the sentiment nor that it might be an effective idea just that what we are seeing is rare and it's very much down to the person.. Some leaders in history have driven through such things but often they've been popular initially after a long term the opposition was in power or they've been dictatorial in nature.. The modern way seems to be towards populist leaders but often that comes with much division to one side, pragmatic leadership is that's needed but not sure we'll get that for a while yet if at all.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A victory for Trump and Vance. Europe has accepted that it has to pay its way for its defence. It's a bit overdue but better late than never.. Strange how one man speaking with directness woke up Europe’s leadership in less than six weeks after years of them doing nothing. Can you imagine if these same leaders used the same energy here to resolve all the other domestic issues they have! Valid point.. But no I can't, not saying I disagree with the sentiment nor that it might be an effective idea just that what we are seeing is rare and it's very much down to the person.. Some leaders in history have driven through such things but often they've been popular initially after a long term the opposition was in power or they've been dictatorial in nature.. The modern way seems to be towards populist leaders but often that comes with much division to one side, pragmatic leadership is that's needed but not sure we'll get that for a while yet if at all.." They have set a benchmark time for action. We need Trump to dial into PM's questions every week, that should turn the country around pretty sharpish. Starmer would be fixing everything in 4 weeks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A victory for Trump and Vance. Europe has accepted that it has to pay its way for its defence. It's a bit overdue but better late than never.. Strange how one man speaking with directness woke up Europe’s leadership in less than six weeks after years of them doing nothing. Can you imagine if these same leaders used the same energy here to resolve all the other domestic issues they have! Valid point.. But no I can't, not saying I disagree with the sentiment nor that it might be an effective idea just that what we are seeing is rare and it's very much down to the person.. Some leaders in history have driven through such things but often they've been popular initially after a long term the opposition was in power or they've been dictatorial in nature.. The modern way seems to be towards populist leaders but often that comes with much division to one side, pragmatic leadership is that's needed but not sure we'll get that for a while yet if at all.. They have set a benchmark time for action. We need Trump to dial into PM's questions every week, that should turn the country around pretty sharpish. Starmer would be fixing everything in 4 weeks. "Pity he chose not to be so advisory in the last governments time.. 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A victory for Trump and Vance. Europe has accepted that it has to pay its way for its defence. It's a bit overdue but better late than never.. Strange how one man speaking with directness woke up Europe’s leadership in less than six weeks after years of them doing nothing. Can you imagine if these same leaders used the same energy here to resolve all the other domestic issues they have! Valid point.. But no I can't, not saying I disagree with the sentiment nor that it might be an effective idea just that what we are seeing is rare and it's very much down to the person.. Some leaders in history have driven through such things but often they've been popular initially after a long term the opposition was in power or they've been dictatorial in nature.. The modern way seems to be towards populist leaders but often that comes with much division to one side, pragmatic leadership is that's needed but not sure we'll get that for a while yet if at all.. They have set a benchmark time for action. We need Trump to dial into PM's questions every week, that should turn the country around pretty sharpish. Starmer would be fixing everything in 4 weeks.
Pity he chose not to be so advisory in the last governments time..
"There wasn't a PM in office long enough to take notice towards the end  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A victory for Trump and Vance. Europe has accepted that it has to pay its way for its defence. It's a bit overdue but better late than never.. Strange how one man speaking with directness woke up Europe’s leadership in less than six weeks after years of them doing nothing. Can you imagine if these same leaders used the same energy here to resolve all the other domestic issues they have! Valid point.. But no I can't, not saying I disagree with the sentiment nor that it might be an effective idea just that what we are seeing is rare and it's very much down to the person.. Some leaders in history have driven through such things but often they've been popular initially after a long term the opposition was in power or they've been dictatorial in nature.. The modern way seems to be towards populist leaders but often that comes with much division to one side, pragmatic leadership is that's needed but not sure we'll get that for a while yet if at all.. They have set a benchmark time for action. We need Trump to dial into PM's questions every week, that should turn the country around pretty sharpish. Starmer would be fixing everything in 4 weeks.
Pity he chose not to be so advisory in the last governments time..
There wasn't a PM in office long enough to take notice towards the end "There is that.. Poor old Donald would have gotten all confused.. Perish the thought that the leader of the free world might be confused..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
