Metropol

I still have a serious hump about the billions of pounds we send overseas in international aid. We as a country are in dire straits. Charity begins at home, so as a person from the apparently wealthy SE, i have no problems with my taxes being spent to help those in the North, Wales, Ireland or Scotland and us suvveners. I'm quite happy that what i put in the pot helps my fellow countrymen. So long as we come first and then whats left can help others. Or was what i taught at school about economics aload of old tosh.

ODA is currently around 0.52% of our gross national income.

In real terms, this equates to about $11bn, or £7.8bn.

Current govt budget spends £33bn on public order and safety alone, nearly 5 times as much.

I'm quite happy with 0.5p out of my tax pound being spent trying to right some wrongs around the world, many of which Britain caused in the past anyway.

Of course, despite these dire straits we can somehow afford to hold onto all those bank shares, keep together an education and health system*, run a couple of wars and generally not have issues with famine and/or cholera.

* Hopefully

Alexia wrote:

dosxuk wrote:The "WAG Express" is a train service which nobody wants and nobody uses. But the WAG think it's something that people want, so they subsidise it with a ridiculous amount of money which could be better spent elsewhere.

It's not quite fresh air, nor is it 5 carriages (it's one first class plus buffet and another three standard classes) all pulled by a clapped out old Class 57 (to be replaced by a 67 soon). It's called the WAG express because its primary clientele are Welsh Assembly members and their civil service entourages. It leaves Holyhead at 5:45am and gets to Cardiff for about 9:30am, and goes back again at 16:15.

They're thinking about doubling the number of services....

EDIT :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bushcutta/ ... /lightbox/

Hasn't it already been doubled? Operated by a DMU for the time being?

barcode wrote:

dosxuk wrote: The "crap" that the english subsidise the scots and welsh is not "crap" - it's true. And can be even more localised, in that people in the south east of england subsidise everyone else.

Then in that since, yorkshire, Tyneside etc are all Subsidise as well,

Thanks for the infor, both of you about the Wag service.

Rubbish. Passenger Transport Executives were formed to maintain levels of service in areas where Public Transport is both well used and serves a significant need in the local area's economy.

The WAG express is what happens when Politicians realise they have the power (and money) to introduce rail services - they literally help themselves. The Valley Lines are rammed, as are services to Manchester and Birmingham, and yet they see fit to tender out a service that is of no distinct economic advantage nor of any real use to anybody beside the previously mentioned WAG delegates.

Alexia wrote:Incidentally (and I realise I'm taking this topic wildly OT, for which I apologise) the freshly refurbished 158s (originally built 1988-91) have powerpoints at every seat; yet these don't.

I thought they were just at tables?

That post was never about Passenger Transport Executives.

barcode wrote:That post was never about Passenger Transport Executives.

Well you were discussing the subsidisation of Public Transport in Yorkshire (SYPTE and WYPTE) and Tyneside (TWPTE) - so I'd say it had everything to do with them and/or their behaviour.

Lorns wrote:I still have a serious hump about the billions of pounds we send overseas in international aid. We as a country are in dire straits. Charity begins at home, so as a person from the apparently wealthy SE, i have no problems with my taxes being spent to help those in the North, Wales, Ireland or Scotland and us suvveners. I'm quite happy that what i put in the pot helps my fellow countrymen. So long as we come first and then whats left can help others. Or was what i taught at school about economics aload of old tosh.

I struggle to believe that or aid funding is just because we thought it would be a nice thing to do. I believe that most aid deals are linked to some sort of business deal and the aid is used as a sweetener so the recipient thinks "they've been nice, maybe we should allow them to build oil infrastructure" etc. In some cases the aid may even be more formally linked to UK business i.e. We will give you aid so long as you use a UK company to build your hospital.

Or am I beig pessimistic?

Sput wrote:Of course, despite these dire straits we can somehow afford to hold onto all those bank shares, keep together an education and health system*, run a couple of wars and generally not have issues with famine and/or cholera.

* Hopefully

The difference being that all those things promote growth and employment and are for our benefit.

The idea of an individual borrowing money to donate to charity would be absurd, so why should it be different for a country?

There are plenty of creditor nations who can keep the poor afloat if they want to -- not that they do, and I'm not sure I necessarily thing they're wrong.

Gareth wrote:

Lorns wrote:I still have a serious hump about the billions of pounds we send overseas in international aid. We as a country are in dire straits. Charity begins at home, so as a person from the apparently wealthy SE, i have no problems with my taxes being spent to help those in the North, Wales, Ireland or Scotland and us suvveners. I'm quite happy that what i put in the pot helps my fellow countrymen. So long as we come first and then whats left can help others. Or was what i taught at school about economics aload of old tosh.

I struggle to believe that or aid funding is just because we thought it would be a nice thing to do. I believe that most aid deals are linked to some sort of business deal and the aid is used as a sweetener so the recipient thinks "they've been nice, maybe we should allow them to build oil infrastructure" etc. In some cases the aid may even be more formally linked to UK business i.e. We will give you aid so long as you use a UK company to build your hospital.

Or am I beig pessimistic?

I've never looked at it that way before Gareth. x

I recall an episode of Question Time where Danny Alexander was vilified by the crowd for supporting the hike in English tutition fees that will have little to no effect on his constituents, saying that he consulted them about it. That would be an example of the unfairness of the current system, however I can't think of a better way of doing things...

Gareth wrote:

Lorns wrote:I still have a serious hump about the billions of pounds we send overseas in international aid. We as a country are in dire straits. Charity begins at home, so as a person from the apparently wealthy SE, i have no problems with my taxes being spent to help those in the North, Wales, Ireland or Scotland and us suvveners. I'm quite happy that what i put in the pot helps my fellow countrymen. So long as we come first and then whats left can help others. Or was what i taught at school about economics aload of old tosh.

I struggle to believe that or aid funding is just because we thought it would be a nice thing to do. I believe that most aid deals are linked to some sort of business deal and the aid is used as a sweetener so the recipient thinks "they've been nice, maybe we should allow them to build oil infrastructure" etc. In some cases the aid may even be more formally linked to UK business i.e. We will give you aid so long as you use a UK company to build your hospital.

Or am I beig pessimistic?

It's probably the reason countires like Qatar donate millions in aid to countries and situations all over the world.