Westminster Politics 2024-2029

nickm said:
Good, but needs to be even higher, unfortunately, and fast.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to know why you thinkt he priority for a country that cannot afford to pay enough to support people with 3 children, or keep granny warm in winter, should increase military spending.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
I'd be interested to know why you thinkt he priority for a country that cannot afford to pay enough to support people with 3 children, or keep granny warm in winter, should increase military spending.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. The welfare state already receives too little money as it is. We should not be pissing away money on unnecessary shite that we don’t need.
 
Balljy said:
Yeah, it was originally pledged by Sunak, was in the Labour manifesto, and in their budget so that's some "exclusive".
Click to expand...
To be fair Badenoch did say they pledged nothing for the military in the budget in PMQs. So there appears to be some collective amnesia around this.

Reeves fecking even mentioned it in the speech about how it was higher than the NATO commitments. Journalism is in the gutter.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
I'd be interested to know why you thinkt he priority for a country that cannot afford to pay enough to support people with 3 children, or keep granny warm in winter, should increase military spending.
Click to expand...
If Trump pulls American money and funding out of NATO, Western European countries will need to pay more for defence. Collaborating with projects and joint military plans will help ease the burden. But it does mean close cooperation within Europe.
 
Frosty said:
If Trump pulls American money and funding out of NATO, Western European countries will need to pay more for defence. Collaborating with projects and joint military plans will help ease the burden. But it does mean close cooperation within Europe.
Click to expand...
It will never happen. Trump is but a temporary custodian. He can only really shape America and by what we've heard so far he's taking them back to the 50s meanwhile the East is advancing at blistering pace technologically. By the end of Trumps second reign, the US will likely be irrelevant as a world power.
 
TheGame said:
Jenrick community noted and keeping the Tories reputation as lieing sacks of shit. The social media bullshit war continues on this side of the pond.


Click to expand...

Yeah but David Lammy said some bad things about Donald Trump, and that's the thing we need to be appalled about.

I mean, Trump's own VP called him much worse but that's not important either.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
It will never happen. Trump is but a temporary custodian. He can only really shape America and by what we've heard so far he's taking them back to the 50s meanwhile the East is advancing at blistering pace technologically. By the end of Trumps second reign, the US will likely be irrelevant as a world power.
Click to expand...
Do you actually believe that?
 
Ultimate Grib said:
It will never happen. Trump is but a temporary custodian. He can only really shape America and by what we've heard so far he's taking them back to the 50s meanwhile the East is advancing at blistering pace technologically. By the end of Trumps second reign, the US will likely be irrelevant as a world power.
Click to expand...
No chance that is true but that isn't to say the next 4 years won't be incredibly damaging for the US and the world or that the US won't be diminished to some degree as a world power. China and Russia will be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of Trump returning. China won't like tarrifs or having to reciprocate but they will, knowing that the damage caused by Trump will hugely help their long game.
 
Frosty said:
If Trump pulls American money and funding out of NATO, Western European countries will need to pay more for defence. Collaborating with projects and joint military plans will help ease the burden. But it does mean close cooperation within Europe.
Click to expand...

Why would the uk need to pay more for defence?

We pay for trident. It is a second strike system, its only purpose is a deterrent.

Either it works, and the status quo is fine, or it doesn't work, and we use the money from trident to bolster other areas of military and send it back the US where it came from.
 

Blind woman denied benefits because she attended DWP interview with help of mother​


https://www.theguardian.com/society...he-attended-dwp-interview-with-help-of-mother

A blind woman with complex disabilities was refused benefits because she managed to travel to the interview with her mother’s help, she has told The Observer.

Charlotte Easton was assessed for another benefits claim in a phone call, and the Department for Work and Pensions then gave its decision by sending her a printed letter that she could not read.


Sense, a charity for disabled people, says these kinds of experiences are commonplace, after it conducted a survey of 1,001 people with complex disabilities, defined as those with two or more conditions such as a visual or hearing impairment or a learning disability.

The research found that 43% had been repeatedly contacted by the DWP in a format that did not meet their needs, even though they had previously told the department how they should be contacted.

More than half (51%) said they felt humiliated by going through the benefits process and 45% said it had made symptoms of the condition worse. Of those that did receive support, 51% said their benefits payments did not cover the extra costs they face from being disabled and more than a third were behind on the energy bills.

Easton is 40 and lives in Hertfordshire with her brother, who acts as her carer. She is blind and has a hearing impairment and was diagnosed with Pfeiffer syndrome, a genetic condition affecting her skull, and hydrocephalus. She cannot leave home without help and employers have not been interested in her, so she applied for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and had to travel to Archway in north London for her assessment.

“They asked how I got there,” she said. “My mum said we’d gone by train, and she’d had to guide me and make sure people didn’t bump into me and all those sorts of things.

“Because mum was able to get me there, they basically said that that, and the fact that I used to have dogs and let them in the garden, meant ‘you’re more than capable of working’.”

She was assessed for a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) in a phone call and was accepted and given the decision in a printed letter that her mother had to read to her. She believes her mother told the DWP to contact her with braille letters or via email, which she can access with a screen reader.Easton said that having family and friends who could support her was important, but she did not want to be dependent on them all the time.

“It does frustrate me,” she said. “My mum tried to appeal against [the ESA decision] but nothing came of it. I said I couldn’t keep going through things like that. Much as life might be easier with the money, my life would be easier without the stress of trying to battle for it.”

She has been working with a communicator guide, who takes her out once a week. “She’s got me confident enough now that I won’t hold onto her – I’ll just hold my arm against her as we walk. I use my cane now which I never had the confidence to use before.” Easton recently discovered the existence of guide runners and now hopes to do a marathon. “I started last week and I was quite impressed because I didn’t fall over.”

Sense says the government should reform the benefits system to make it fully accessible, with an application process that is as simple as possible for disabled people and benefit rates that allow them to afford essentials.

Richard Kramer, Sense’s chief executive, said: “Our research has exposed serious flaws with the benefits system – which disabled people are paying the price for.“It is unacceptable that people with complex disabilities are feeling humiliated and scared, and having their condition deteriorate because of their benefits assessments.”

Several charities and disability campaigners have criticised the benefits system, saying that vulnerable claimants have been pushed into hardship after being refused help unfairly. In 2020, there was outcry after it emerged that Errol Graham, a severely mental ill man, died of starvation in 2018, eight months after his disability benefits were cut off.

In May, the Equality and Human Rights Commission launched an investigation into the DWP and successive secretaries of state, on suspicion they had broken equality law through their treatment of disabled people and those with severe mental illness.

The EHRC’s chair, Kisher Falkner, said at the time she was “extremely worried” and felt they needed “to take the strongest possible action”.

Last month Liz Kendall, the new work and pensions secretary, published 31 reports that she said had been suppressed by her Conservative predecessors, including one which showed that two thirds of benefits claimants with debts had been unable to buy food.

The work capability assessment, used to decide who gets ESA, is expected to be reformed or replaced in early 2025 as part of the government’s ambition to reduce the benefits bill. Campaigners are nervous about what that means. Under Rishi Sunak, the government consulted on changes to PIP that would mean the cash benefit was replaced with a voucher scheme or one-off grants and the new administration is examining the responses.

The DWP said it was unable to comment on Easton’s case since it had not been given enough details to investigate – Easton did not want to give her national insurance number to the department’s media team.

A spokesperson said: “Millions of people rely on our welfare system every year and it is vital that it can be accessed by all who need it.

“That’s why we will work closely with disabled people to reform the current system so that it provides the support they need.”
Click to expand...
 
Nogbadthebad said:
I'd be interested to know why you thinkt he priority for a country that cannot afford to pay enough to support people with 3 children, or keep granny warm in winter, should increase military spending.
Click to expand...
Because there's an aggressive military power on NATOs borders and we can no longer rely on our key NATO ally to help defend us.

And I do think the ability to keep our populations safe comes first.
 
Last edited:
Frosty said:
If Trump pulls American money and funding out of NATO, Western European countries will need to pay more for defence. Collaborating with projects and joint military plans will help ease the burden. But it does mean close cooperation within Europe.
Click to expand...
He doesnt even need to pull funding. He just needs to do enough to undermine article 5 and arguably he already has.
 
Because
Nogbadthebad said:
Why would the uk need to pay more for defence?

We pay for trident. It is a second strike system, its only purpose is a deterrent.

Either it works, and the status quo is fine, or it doesn't work, and we use the money from trident to bolster other areas of military and send it back the US where it came from.
Click to expand...
Because we are part of a military alliance that also requires a substantial conventional capability, currently relying extremely heavily on American expertise, will and firepower.
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
Because

Because we are part of a military alliance that also requires a substantial conventional capability, currently relying extremely heavily on American expertise, will and firepower.
Click to expand...

Great.

Now what specific threat to this country, one that warrents letting people freeze to death to afford, are we going to be combatting.

Remember, this action means British people will freeze to death, because we apparently cannot afford both, so it needs to be both a specific and real threat to the people of this country.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Why would the uk need to pay more for defence?

We pay for trident. It is a second strike system, its only purpose is a deterrent.

Either it works, and the status quo is fine, or it doesn't work, and we use the money from trident to bolster other areas of military and send it back the US where it came from.
Click to expand...
The Conservatives austerity hit the military. They need billions just to maintain or get back to 2010 levels.

American military spending underpins NATO, especially in terms of the number of soldiers, sailors and airmen and women in Europe.

That said, the military budgets of Western Europe greatly exceed Russia's, but there is a great deal of duplication and repetitive spending. More cooperation and joint operations can secure the continent.

The UK does have Trident, but given Putin's belligerence, that may not be enough for the Baltic states. You could have a continent wide arrangement where Britain and France provide the majority of naval coverage, other countries provide more soldiers and so on.

You could use the Trident money for armed forces, and sign an agreement with France to cover us. You are right on that.

Of course that goes against the general anti European sentiment in the UK.

There is always the option of taxing wealth effectively too. We haven't done that for decades.
 
Frosty said:
The Conservatives austerity hit the military. They need billions just to maintain or get back to 2010 levels.

American military spending underpins NATO, especially in terms of the number of soldiers, sailors and airmen and women in Europe.

That said, the military budgets of Western Europe greatly exceed Russia's, but there is a great deal of duplication and repetitive spending. More cooperation and joint operations can secure the continent.

The UK does have Trident, but given Putin's belligerence, that may not be enough for the Baltic states. You could have a continent wide arrangement where Britain and France provide the majority of naval coverage, other countries provide more soldiers and so on.

You could use the Trident money for armed forces, and sign an agreement with France to cover us. You are right on that.

Of course that goes against the general anti European sentiment in the UK.

There is always the option of taxing wealth effectively too. We haven't done that for decades.
Click to expand...

I think when we are at the point where the consensus is we can;t afford to keep a 3rd child in a family properly funded, or we are so poor that we accept old people freezing to death due to a lack of funds, then it is morally incomprehensible to even contemplate spending more cash on weapons.

Is putin a threat? He is to former USSR states, for sure, and probably to germany if they ever prove who was involved in blowing up the gas line. But us?

I'd take all the reds under the bed scares a bit more serious if we had not spent the last 40 years welcoming Russian oligarchs with golden visas and selling them half the property in London.

If we can't afford to feed the kids in this country properly we have to be pragmatic. If its not a threat to us, don't get involved.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Great.

Now what specific threat to this country, one that warrents letting people freeze to death to afford, are we going to be combatting.

Remember, this action means British people will freeze to death, because we apparently cannot afford both, so it needs to be both a specific and real threat to the people of this country.
Click to expand...

Ok so I guess we’ll stop investing in measures to control climate change too? Investment in the green transition…..nah. Foreign aid can be stopped too I guess. Pandemic preparedness can probably go, who knows when that’ll happen again. A lot of research funding can probably be binned. After all people are starving, and none of this will immediately help us.

There’s enough money, children shouldn’t be starving. It’s not acceptable. We need however to pay and invest in other things. We shouldn’t accept politicians saying there isn’t enough money, raise taxes more then.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.