|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 1, 2024 15:28:43 GMT
How can you know you need 3% of GDP to fund our military as a party when you don't know what your foreign policy is?
I thought I was in luck the other day because at their party conference they proudly roll out "Our contract with the British People", and make big bones about it being one better than a manifesto as Tice says "This is how we do things in business/We're all businessmen".
Now the 3% GDP for the military was mentioned in detail at the conference, so one can presume this is part of the contract. I calculate on 2023 GDP the figure Reform have in the contract is you pay us £74.5bn per annum. OK so far so good, but as any businessman knows, a contract by definition is and must be an exchange. If there is no exchange then a contract can not exist, as per British common law of contract. It is at this point I start to feel confused. The website proudly displays a helpful search box, so I search foreign policy and we just get told search term not found, and by manually going through it I can not find any information on their foreign policy, nor if I check Google in case any journalist out there knows something we the British people are not told. No luck there either so here we are.
I suppose this feeling is familiar here in the UK with British business because we've all had hour long waits on the phone only to be automatically cut off and no reply, or some blonde who can't communicate an intelligible reply to our perfectly simple enquiry. Can anyone here help out though? What can we expect for our £74.4 billion?
By the way, I was not initially even seeking to know the answer to this expenditure re foreign policy because what I really wanted to know was how they will conduct foreign policy in relation to trade, i.e. the other side of the balance sheet, which we need to improve the economy. I drew a blank on this as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 1, 2024 20:57:55 GMT
The point i think is that NATO who after all should by this time have a pretty good idea what their military strategy should be have out it about that they need 2%, Trump berates most of the EU for not paying anything like that. And Reform say they want to put in half as much again and put an end to foreign aid which after all was invented as a bribe to despots to order their guns and bullets to keep the local critics in check from us, and is largely still the same, funding just about everything except the starving critics kids, who are only starving because their parents are critics….
Seems 100% ok to me …
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 2, 2024 5:07:08 GMT
The point i think is that NATO who after all should by this time have a pretty good idea what their military strategy should be have out it about that they need 2%, Trump berates most of the EU for not paying anything like that. And Reform say they want to put in half as much again and put an end to foreign aid which after all was invented as a bribe to despots to order their guns and bullets to keep the local critics in check from us, and is largely still the same, funding just about everything except the starving critics kids, who are only starving because their parents are critics…. Seems 100% ok to me … The thing I found was the first part of the conference I liked very much as it explained all the ways he was going to save money via reducing waste. The problem arises in the second half where he thinks about the army as the model to run all of government and that it should be funded to the max. There are two things the saved money could usefully be put to, and the one is industrial investment so we get a payback further down the line, and the other is hand the cash back now. The problem with the second though is the people will piss it all up down the pub and that would stoke inflation. In some countries, e.g. in China, handing the money back is doable because the culture is one of savers, so the money gets invested in industry that way.
Anyway, I don't get his infatuation with the army. He sounds like the kid Johnson was who liked to play toy soldiers. Going around threatening other nations is very bad for trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 2, 2024 7:15:13 GMT
Baron, did it ever occur to you that the behaviour of ‘saving’ which you attribute to some Chinese ‘ethic’ is, in fact, driven by the fact ANY behaviour deviant from that required of you by the Chinese state that LITERALLY monitors your EVERY move will earn you a visit from the secret pice at 3am and a one way trip to the re-education gulag of THEIR choice ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 2, 2024 7:58:37 GMT
The Chinese penchant for saving has caused an almighty economic crisis with scores of property companies now bankrupt and being kept afloat by the Government. Investing in property caused a massive boom that has now turned to bust and is a major drag on economic growth.
Lessons that the rest of the world would do well to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Mar 2, 2024 11:14:26 GMT
I am no economist, but I have a basic grasp of economics, and what I do know is that if we are fortunate enough to get rid of this terrible Tory government, there will not be enough money to do all the things that are important, and need to be done.
In the wake of what has happened in Ukraine, and with Russia becoming more and more threataning and authoritarian, I recognise the need to sharpen up our defence capabilities, just as Germany, France, Poland and others are doing.
Meanwhile, at home our Public Services are now in an appaling condition, with some services not fit for purpose.
So, yes I agree with increased defence spending, but I also see the mess our public services are in, so how do we pay for it all. ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 2, 2024 11:37:38 GMT
I am no economist, but I have a basic grasp of economics, and what I do know is that if we are fortunate enough to get rid of this terrible Tory government, there will not be enough money to do all the things that are important, and need to be done. In the wake of what has happened in Ukraine, and with Russia becoming more and more threataning and authoritarian, I recognise the need to sharpen up our defence capabilities, just as Germany, France, Poland and others are doing. Meanwhile, at home our Public Services are now in an appaling condition, with some services not fit for purpose. So, yes I agree with increased defence spending, but I also see the mess our public services are in, so how do we pay for it all. ? Do we need to? - why not do less? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 2, 2024 11:47:53 GMT
I am no economist, but I have a basic grasp of economics, and what I do know is that if we are fortunate enough to get rid of this terrible Tory government, there will not be enough money to do all the things that are important, and need to be done. In the wake of what has happened in Ukraine, and with Russia becoming more and more threataning and authoritarian, I recognise the need to sharpen up our defence capabilities, just as Germany, France, Poland and others are doing. Meanwhile, at home our Public Services are now in an appaling condition, with some services not fit for purpose. So, yes I agree with increased defence spending, but I also see the mess our public services are in, so how do we pay for it all. ? Do we need to? - why not do less? Do you mean less funding or less services? If the former what services could live on less funding? If the latter which services would you jettison? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 2, 2024 14:05:11 GMT
Baron, did it ever occur to you that the behaviour of ‘saving’ which you attribute to some Chinese ‘ethic’ is, in fact, driven by the fact ANY behaviour deviant from that required of you by the Chinese state that LITERALLY monitors your EVERY move will earn you a visit from the secret pice at 3am and a one way trip to the re-education gulag of THEIR choice ?? What a load of crap. I think it is just cultural. Our country used to be prudent. It comes from psychology, known as delayed gratification and is seen in organisms of higher intelligence that have a larger frontal lobe in their brain which plans for the future. The maturity of the Brits is waning. The government treats them like children and so they assume the mentality of children. Put £1000 in the pockets of some people and they would end the night with alcohol poisoning. They just don't know when to stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 2, 2024 14:13:29 GMT
I am no economist, but I have a basic grasp of economics, and what I do know is that if we are fortunate enough to get rid of this terrible Tory government, there will not be enough money to do all the things that are important, and need to be done. In the wake of what has happened in Ukraine, and with Russia becoming more and more threataning and authoritarian, I recognise the need to sharpen up our defence capabilities, just as Germany, France, Poland and others are doing. Meanwhile, at home our Public Services are now in an appaling condition, with some services not fit for purpose. So, yes I agree with increased defence spending, but I also see the mess our public services are in, so how do we pay for it all. ? We are not spending the money on defence. We spend it on offence. No one is currently attacking us except the Islamic terrorists in the UK. Many attacks are in retaliation to our offensive operations in the Middle East. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 2, 2024 18:14:04 GMT
Do we need to? - why not do less? Do you mean less funding or less services? If the former what services could live on less funding? If the latter which services would you jettison? I'm talking about actually doing less. I'll give you one concrete example - Florida last year introduced a law banning public schools from using federal or state funding on diversity programs. As a result Florida University has now scrapped its diversity and inclusion office, sacked around 15 staff and saved $5 million. What if the UK government did that across the entire public sector - the money saved by removing jobs and programs would be significant. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 2, 2024 18:29:56 GMT
Do you mean less funding or less services? If the former what services could live on less funding? If the latter which services would you jettison? I'm talking about actually doing less. I'll give you one concrete example - Florida last year introduced a law banning public schools from using federal or state funding on diversity programs. As a result Florida University has now scrapped its diversity and inclusion office, sacked around 15 staff and saved $5 million. What if the UK government did that across the entire public sector - the money saved by removing jobs and programs would be significant. All that side of it made perfect sense and demonstrated Tice had studied the problem. The problem with his delivery was that the punchline was you the punter voter are not getting any of the money back since here we have all our plans to piss it away on some other white elephant. Like the three cups and a ball trick: you think you have the cash, but it is just numbers on paper, not your bank account, like a virtual saving, it never appeared/vanished! |
|
