Well if Labour keep this up I think I’ll be voting for them at the next GE!

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

Starmer has made a diificult decision about overseas aid

I don’t think that Murphy will be approving that decision at all, Silverbrooks. On the contrary, he will be lambasting him for it and maybe, like me, he will note the utter irony of Starmer’s reference to Attlee and Bevin. Who increased public spending post WW2.

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

I just hate his profound economic ignorance (and likewise his chancellor’s equal ignorance) 😆

Yet that is what is being planned in order to increase defence spending. It is utterly stupid

I suppose MaizieD that Rachel Reeves has the same mindset economically as Maggie Thatcher? The prudence in ‘housekeeping’ ie only spending ‘what we have, as any housewife can tell you?’.

Cabowich he’d just intone that ‘these are difficult and different times’. Covers all bases and deflects criticism!

Surely (one would think) that Starmer and Reeves are taking fiscal advice from learned economists?

They will have such advice available. Whether they take it is questionable on the evidence so far.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Blimey PoliticsNerd you certainly know how kill a somewhat ‘fun thread’. I bet you’re fun at parties! Could you not see my thread was delivered in a lighthearted manner?

My fault too - I ought to have put it under ‘Chat’ 😂

we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.
and

There is nothing funny in what is happening FriedGreenTomatoes2. We are having to reduce our soft power which stores up higher future costs and people will die.

Starmer said "I want to be clear to the House that this is not an announcement that I am happy to make." I think many understand that but obviously, not all.

Perhaps it's worth remembering that, "if your audience doesn't laugh it's not because they are a bad audience - it's because you don't have the skills [or knowledge] to make them laugh at what you want to talk about"

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

The world has changed immeasurably since then, particularly with the arrival of Trump!

Any government worth its salt has to adapt to the situation it faces.

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

The issue is that cuts in aid by far-right Tories tend to go straight in their own pockets. That is far from why it is happening now.

This government has been left to deal with recruitment challenges across its armed forces. Commitments to increasing its defence spending to meet NATO commitments not going forward because of budget constraints and competing domestic priorities which havent been dealt with, and a changing global security landscape.

UK armed forces remain engaged in various international missions and operations, ranging from peacekeeping to counter-terrorism efforts. There has been ongoing public and political debate regarding the adequacy of resources, morale among troops, and veterans' support.

None of dealing with the situation left by the last Government and their inabilities makes Starmer a hypocrite. It does tell us a great deal about the ever diminishing Tory Party however.

MaizieD

^Starmer has made a diificult decision about overseas aid^

I don’t think that Murphy will be approving that decision at all, Silverbrooks. On the contrary, he will be lambasting him for it and maybe, like me, he will note the utter irony of Starmer’s reference to Attlee and Bevin. Who increased public spending post WW2.

I agree and hope Murphy will in his repeated attempts to make people to understand how and why government creates money.

I should have made myself clearer in that people are claiming that Starmer is stealing Reform's ideas.

In the light of the news that the UK is suspending aid to Rwanda over support for DMC rebels, is that one of the factors taken into account in diverting funds? Since 1998, the UK has provided over £1 billion of development assistance to the country.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-rwanda-development-partnership-summary/9dba78ce-012e-417e-9ff3-2f31b5cf5fac

LizzieDrip

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

The world has changed immeasurably since then, particularly with the arrival of Trump!

Any government worth its salt has to adapt to the situation it faces.

You are dar more succinct than I am LizzieDrip Sorry I didn't see this before I posted

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

It's not hypocrisy. It's a reluctant reaction to an extraordinary and dangerous situation. That was not the case when the Tories decided to cut aid.

Starmer said, "We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and to rebuild a capability on development. But at times like this, the defence and security of the British people must always come first. That is the No. 1 priority of this Government."

Perhaps it's worth remembering that, "if your audience doesn't laugh it's not because they are a bad audience - it's because you don't have the skills [or knowledge] to make them laugh at what you want to talk about"

Maybe PoliticsNerd however perhaps it’s worth remembering also that people have different senses of humour.

Silverbrooks

MaizieD

Starmer has made a diificult decision about overseas aid

I don’t think that Murphy will be approving that decision at all, Silverbrooks. On the contrary, he will be lambasting him for it and maybe, like me, he will note the utter irony of Starmer’s reference to Attlee and Bevin. Who increased public spending post WW2.

I agree and hope Murphy will in his repeated attempts to make people to understand how and why government creates money.

I should have made myself clearer in that people are claiming that Starmer is stealing Reform's ideas.

In the light of the news that the UK is suspending aid to Rwanda over support for DMC rebels, is that one of the factors taken into account in diverting funds? Since 1998, the UK has provided over £1 billion of development assistance to the country.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-rwanda-development-partnership-summary/9dba78ce-012e-417e-9ff3-2f31b5cf5fac

They don't seem to be ignorant of what is accepted by the rest of the world. Which countries currently run their economy in the way you would want UK to do?

Oh Dear.
I think Starmer has made the right decision, for whatever reason but presumably reacting to a dangerous situation, Trump's threats being the most dangerous at present.

So why do we have to have these comments:
It's not hypocrisy. It's a reluctant reaction to an extraordinary and dangerous situation. That was not the case when the Tories decided to cut aid.

The Tories had perfectly valid reasons for cutting Foreign aid at that time, and not to put money straight in their own pockets, as someone else so gracelessly said.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

^Perhaps it's worth remembering that, "if your audience doesn't laugh it's not because they are a bad audience - it's because you don't have the skills [or knowledge] to make them laugh at what you want to talk about"^

Maybe PoliticsNerd however perhaps it’s worth remembering also that people have different senses of humour.

But if you expect them to laugh at your "joke" you need to appeal to their sense of humour, not your own. Attacking your audience will not change their minds.

I don't find us taking money from the poorest - which means many will die and those that don't will remember - is ever likely to make me laugh.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

^Perhaps it's worth remembering that, "if your audience doesn't laugh it's not because they are a bad audience - it's because you don't have the skills [or knowledge] to make them laugh at what you want to talk about"^

Maybe PoliticsNerd however perhaps it’s worth remembering also that people have different senses of humour.

More worrying is if the speaker glances up and sees the audience 😴😴😴

I don’t think I was ‘laughing’ at taking money from the poorest regarding overseas aid. I just think it ought to be targeted better. There have been examples in the press of some very random expenditures. I read it’s often to ‘use up’ the budget so it doesn’t get cut next time it’s allocated which has often meant a quick scramble to give it to something (anything, even daft enterprises!) around January so it’s done and dusted before the end of the yearly budget.

I am feeling very uncomfortable about the cut to aid. So very shortsighted, but benefits are long term, so the voter will not make the connection between cuts to aid and consequences in the future.

I do however fully support the increase in defence spending.

I didn’t think you were laughing FGT. I agree with what you say about the foreign aid budget. Some of it may be used sensibly, but too much goes on what a commentator yesterday called ‘woolly projects’. I absolutely agree with spending less on foreign aid to beef up the defence budget - and let’s remember that it will need to continue to be increased.

PN
The issue is that cuts in aid by far-right Tories tend to go straight in their own pockets.
Evidence?

Total nonsense.

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

Its not hypocrisy when faced with a totally unprecedented situation.

Does anyone really believe policies could or should remain set in stone for years on end as circumstances change? What kind of government could ever function like that?

We know about unprecedented situations.