Re: UK Election
 

An "article" written by some blogger I've never heard of saying Cameron must accept the SNP's anti austerity "mandate" or the UK is finished?

Is this when I start rolling around on the ground, laughing?

Re: UK Election
 

May I suggest that you do just a little research and engage brain befotre opening mouth.

The NHS is not in any way privatised. believe me you will soon find out if it is.
Yes they are HELPING with the food banks because of the economic down turn.
Enough:sneaky:

Re: UK Election
 

Re: UK Election
 

Helping with food banks.

Here's a crazy thought.

How about a G20 country not NEEDING ****ing food banks in the 1st place .

I vote SNP as a means to an end and am actually fairly right wing on a lot of issues but I cannot for any reason or for one moment understand the NEED to HELP food banks. I cannot see why a country as rich as the UK that wastes as much money daily as the UK cannot figure out a system whereby the poorest in society do not need to go cap in hand to charities for food.

There is zero justification for their existence let alone propping them up instead of solving the problem.

Frankly it's disgusting

Re: UK Election
 

It's not great that a developed nation has food banks, but I also think it's slightly unrealistic for everyone to be working, paying their way and never struggling.

Re: UK Election
 

You will find that nearly ALL the wealthy countries are FOOD BANKS. Thid is a world wide recession. The UK is leading the rest of the world in it's economic recovery.

Re: UK Election
 

struggling is one thing and arguably essential.
Starvation without assistance is not

Re: UK Election
 

that doesnt make it acceptable its just a statement that we are all as bad as each other.

What recession? Have you seen the markets recently?
There was a crash, citizens are still paying whilst the markets top their highest ever levels for both total value and inter day trades.

Wake up and have your cereal.

Re: UK Election
 

Of course.

But starvation without assistance isn't happening if there are food banks.

Anyway, I don't even know the stats on the things. It could be worse though, we could be Spanish or Greek.

Re: UK Election
 

that were set up by private individuals and charities thus saving the government the bother and cost.

If I had the time I'd look up the total cost of foodbanks nationwide and compare it to some of the civil service or government spending.

I rather suspect that ridiculous comparisons could be made that show that the total cost to the government would be less than re carpeting the offices of tenured and immovable civil servants who haven't done a days work in 30 years.

or about 5 minutes of the annual defence budget, or one bathroom on one of the two aircraft carriers and so on.

My point is the actual cost involved and the effort to prevent food banks being needed are far from high or probably beyond about 15 minutes actual thought.

Re: UK Election
 

May I suggest that instead of reading STATS you look at the reports of all the dailys. We here in Cyprus are living the good life. However all around me I see the effects of the economic down turn. It stretches from RUSSIA to New Zealand/Australia. From China to the USA.

I had my cereal.;)

Re: UK Election
 

Sorry, I see what you're saying now.

One of the things that sticks out in all government spending figures to me is that amount of aid that goes overseas. Now, I'm not against that at all, I think we should help other countries, but when you see some of the developing, fast growing economies that are still receiving decent chunks of cash - it does make you wonder.

Re: UK Election
 

riiight, ok.

thanks for the heads up on where to find reliable accurate information. Point taken, i shall now bow out

Re: UK Election
 

I agree, for example sending money to india a nuclear power with a space program is frankly insane. Far better to send that money to somewhere that's actually poor as a nation.

Overseas aid is a drop in the bucket and a distraction from the sheer amount of mismanagement of funds and waste that goes on in government as a whole.

Take the ever easy target of IT procurement done by the government.

On average the Uk government across all departments spends several times the cost of a pc compared to just going to PC wolrd and buying it. Now PC world is a shockingly expensive way to buy PC's anyway so how on earth can they government even top that cost on a regular basis.

All these different departments nationwide ultimately receive their funding from the same place and can spend as they choose to a degree.

Why is there not a UK wide tender process for the supply of It equipment to all government departments thats actually monitored and has penalty provisions that help the tax payer and not the company.

It should be impossible for me to buy a single identical pc cheaper than a government that buys thousands or even tens of thousands every year.

Or look at the NHS program. A program that's spent an insane sum of money to achieve pretty much less than could have been achieved by just running ****ing dropbox across the NHS.
here

"Costs[edit]
Originally expected to cost £2.3 billion (bn) over three years, in June 2006 the total cost was estimated by the National Audit Office to be £12.4bn over 10 years, and the NAO also noted that "...it was not demonstrated that the financial value of the benefits exceeds the cost of the Programme".[22] Similarly, the British Computer Society (2006) concluded that "...the central costs incurred by NHS are such that, so far, the value for money from services deployed is poor".[23] Officials involved in the programme have been quoted in the media estimating the final cost to be as high as £20bn, indicating a cost overrun of 440% to 770%.[24]

In April 2007, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons issued a damning 175-page report on the programme. The Committee chairman, Edward Leigh, claimed "This is the biggest IT project in the world and it is turning into the biggest disaster." The report concluded that, despite a probable expenditure of 20 billion pounds "at the present rate of progress it is unlikely that significant clinical benefits will be delivered by the end of the contract period."[6]

In September 2013, the Public Accounts Committee said that although the National Programme for IT had been effectively disbanded in 2011, some large regional contracts and other costs remained outstanding and were still costing the public dearly. It described the former National Programme for IT as one of the "worst and most expensive contracting fiascos" ever.[25]

The costs of the venture should have been lessened by the contracts signed by the IT providers making them liable for huge sums of money if they withdrew from the project; however, when Accenture withdrew in September 2006, then Director-General for NPfIT Richard Granger charged them not £1bn, as the contract permitted, but just £63m.[26] Granger's first job was with Andersen Consulting,[27] which later became Accenture."


bollocks
"

Re: UK Election
 

Sorry to 'but in' but have been reading the election threads.
To be accurate, India has stated that it does not want the 'aid' "a pittance" it has been said. They give an equal amount to African countries!!
British 'aid' to India is actually stopping this year.
Overseas Aid is about diplomacy, international relationships, prestige!!! not helping the poor.:(

UK to end financial aid to India by 2015 - BBC News