just been listing to the radio, and the dupty PM mr Clegg has just annonced 500,000 Goverment job cuts to save 83 Billion Pounds to get the country out of Debt....

sorry Mr Clegg, i DO NOT AGREE , why Lay off people who are most probably British , who earn a Living honestly and constribute to society.

Why not, STOP Asylum Seekers who are gloging up the british system and most probably costing us more then 83 billion Pounds a year, why not stop all benefits to the 10 million odd people WHO CANNOT BE BOTHERED to work , the list can go on for ages !!!!

and yes i do know some of these goverment jobs are probably over paid and the person ' Title ' probably has no real meaning or use, its just the principle

rant over

Been reading the daily mail again?

Been reading the daily mail again?

actually no, but yes, but heard this one on the Radio , Londons Heart FM

Been reading the daily mail again?

When are you going to treat yourself to a proper newspaper instead of Hyperbole Central?

When are you going to treat yourself to a proper newspaper instead of Hyperbole Central?

ALL the British newspapers are discussing this. 490,000 government jobs over four years.

Includes such people as police, firemen and so on. Only exceptions are health and education.

Personally I agree with Boater - squeeze the welfare payments - justify the way people claim benefits. When I started work it was necessary to be actively seeking work to claim benefit - the Labour Exchange would send you for an interview, if you failed you got a seconf chance. If you failed that you got a third chance (roadsweeper / garbage collector or similar). If you failed that - goodbye benefits.

I realise that there are probably less openings available these days, so the system may have to be re-tuned. But fit, grown men sitting on their backsides doing nothing is anathema to me. And drawing benefits!

Bring in national identity cards, bring in foolproof ways of monitoring 'black' work and cut the benefits to levels that will encourage people to seek work.

Boater -- start ranting again !!!

Spending review: Development aid money to Third World to rise by 40 per cent

Spending on development aid to the third world is to rise by nearly 40 per cent.

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor

Published: 6:51PM BST 20 Oct 2010

Development aid is to be increased under the spending review.

The Chancellor said the increase would ensure that the UK will hit the United Nations target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on aid within three years.

The Department for International Development’s resource budget increased by 37 per ceent in real terms to £9.4 billion by 2014/15 - the largest rise of any department. The department’s capital budget will grow by 20 per cent to £2 billion.

Mr Osborne said that the increase would make the UK the first major country to meet a target set by the United Nations 40 years ago.

He said: “This Coalition Government will be the first British Government in history, and the first major country in the world, to honour the United Nations commitment on international aid.”

The move was attacked by one right-of-centre think tank which said it “beggars belief” that aid money should increase at the same time as the police and the armed forces here are facing cuts.

DFID will now prioritise conflict resolution, as well as improvements in child and maternal health to help save the lives of 50,000 pregnant women and 250,000 newborn babies.

But controversial aid programmes to China and Russia will be halted. In 2008-09, China received more than £40 million from the UK, while Russia got £190,000.

A new independent commission would also assess other aid programmes.

Mr Osborne added: “Our aid budget allows Britain to lead in the world. It may be protected from cuts but not from scrutiny.

“Britons can hold their heads up high and say - even in these difficult times, we will honour the promise we make to the very poorest in our world.”

However the move was criticised by the Adam Smith Institute, a right of centre thinktank.

Sam Bowman, the institute’s head of research, said the increase in aid spending “unacceptable”.

Mr Bowman said: “Budgetary cuts are sorely needed, and to increase spending overseas while cutting spending in Britain beggars belief.

“Overseas aid is a waste of taxpayers' money that props up dictatorships in sub-Saharan Africa and funds fast-growing countries like India, whose economy has grown by nearly 8.8 per cent in 2010 and which has its own space and nuclear weapons programmes.

“Why the Chancellor thinks that the British taxpayer should fund the Indian space programme is unclear.

At a time when the British Government is cutting spending domestically it makes no sense to increase overseas aid spending.”

However charities welcomed the spending commitment. Alex Cobham, Christian Aid's chief policy adviser, said that it was “therefore beholden on us to meet our moral responsibilities to men and women in countries less fortunate.

“The Government deserves credit for doing this. We have every sympathy for those in the UK who will be hit by the spending cuts.

“However, the money pledged to international development will make the difference between life and death to some of the poorest people on earth.

“It would have been easy to forget their plight amid the shockwaves caused by the Comprehensive Spending Review.”

Phil Bloomer, Oxfam campaigns and policy director, said Mr Osborne and Prime Minister David Cameron deserved “real credit” for sticking to their aid promises.

He said: “The Coalition has taken the tough choice to prioritise the poorest people on the planet during the bad times as well as good.”

Paul Cook, advocacy director at aid charity Tearfund, said: “This is clearly a moral obligation, especially at this time of global economic hardship, and we hope that the rest of the world will follow the UK's lead.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8076707/Spending-review-Development-aid-money-to-Third-World-to-rise-by-40-per-cent.html

So Nicky Clegg wants a putty medal from the UN for being the ONLY country to meet targets set by the UN 40 years ago. <deleted>??

I have just returned from a few days work in Bangladesh, one of the poorer countries in the world. I assume that Britain is supplying aid to BD, as it is a part of the Commonwealth and also gives us most of the kitchen labour in the restaurants of England.

Poverty there is dire.

There are only two major power stations in a country of 180 millkion inhabitants (it was 40 million when they broke away from Pakistan 40 years ago)(I am open to correction on the date - I think it was around 1970).

Yet there are far more cars there than there are here in Saigon, or in Bangkok. The traffic jams are colossal, all over Dhaka.

Much of the population sleeps in the streets of Dhaka, in the countryside they sleep in flimsy shacks.

The busses are all about fifty years old, look as if they have daily accidents, drive like maniacs, have passengers on the roof. Mini-taxis, like tuk-tuks but with grills on the openings so that robbers can't get at you, rikshaws by the hundred. But virtually no motorbikes. And hundreds of people standing on street corners doing nothing. But mostly well-dressed, well-fed.

The population is far too large for the available resources, as with many African countries. (And India). Population control is absolutely necessary and should be conditional for aid packages. And the aid should be supervised by the donor countries, not the local fat-cats.

Only a fraction of all this aid money gets down to where it is needed - we shouid be cutting it, not going for medals.

Boater -- start ranting again !!!

Spending review: Development aid money to Third World to rise by 40 per cent

Spending on development aid to the third world is to rise by nearly 40 per cent.

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor

Published: 6:51PM BST 20 Oct 2010

Development aid is to be increased under the spending review.

The Chancellor said the increase would ensure that the UK will hit the United Nations target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on aid within three years.

The Department for International Development’s resource budget increased by 37 per ceent in real terms to £9.4 billion by 2014/15 - the largest rise of any department. The department’s capital budget will grow by 20 per cent to £2 billion.

Mr Osborne said that the increase would make the UK the first major country to meet a target set by the United Nations 40 years ago.

He said: “This Coalition Government will be the first British Government in history, and the first major country in the world, to honour the United Nations commitment on international aid.”

The move was attacked by one right-of-centre think tank which said it “beggars belief” that aid money should increase at the same time as the police and the armed forces here are facing cuts.

DFID will now prioritise conflict resolution, as well as improvements in child and maternal health to help save the lives of 50,000 pregnant women and 250,000 newborn babies.

But controversial aid programmes to China and Russia will be halted. In 2008-09, China received more than £40 million from the UK, while Russia got £190,000.

A new independent commission would also assess other aid programmes.

Mr Osborne added: “Our aid budget allows Britain to lead in the world. It may be protected from cuts but not from scrutiny.

“Britons can hold their heads up high and say - even in these difficult times, we will honour the promise we make to the very poorest in our world.”

However the move was criticised by the Adam Smith Institute, a right of centre thinktank.

Sam Bowman, the institute’s head of research, said the increase in aid spending “unacceptable”.

Mr Bowman said: “Budgetary cuts are sorely needed, and to increase spending overseas while cutting spending in Britain beggars belief.

“Overseas aid is a waste of taxpayers' money that props up dictatorships in sub-Saharan Africa and funds fast-growing countries like India, whose economy has grown by nearly 8.8 per cent in 2010 and which has its own space and nuclear weapons programmes.

“Why the Chancellor thinks that the British taxpayer should fund the Indian space programme is unclear.

At a time when the British Government is cutting spending domestically it makes no sense to increase overseas aid spending.”

However charities welcomed the spending commitment. Alex Cobham, Christian Aid's chief policy adviser, said that it was “therefore beholden on us to meet our moral responsibilities to men and women in countries less fortunate.

“The Government deserves credit for doing this. We have every sympathy for those in the UK who will be hit by the spending cuts.

“However, the money pledged to international development will make the difference between life and death to some of the poorest people on earth.

“It would have been easy to forget their plight amid the shockwaves caused by the Comprehensive Spending Review.”

Phil Bloomer, Oxfam campaigns and policy director, said Mr Osborne and Prime Minister David Cameron deserved “real credit” for sticking to their aid promises.

He said: “The Coalition has taken the tough choice to prioritise the poorest people on the planet during the bad times as well as good.”

Paul Cook, advocacy director at aid charity Tearfund, said: “This is clearly a moral obligation, especially at this time of global economic hardship, and we hope that the rest of the world will follow the UK's lead.”

http://www.telegraph...0-per-cent.html

So Nicky Clegg wants a putty medal from the UN for being the ONLY country to meet targets set by the UN 40 years ago. <deleted>??

dont even get me started on this one....