Contradictory conservatives

[wintonian]

I'm a bit confused and was hoping someone could help me out?

Yesterday it was announced the the government has apparently decided to withdraw the £200m subsidy provided to India. Conservatives have cited India's investment in its space program:

But the UK's support for India, one of the world's fastest-growing economies, has been a cause of concern among Conservative MPs, many of whom believed that the UK should not be giving money to a country which has a multi-million pound space programme.

Today the government has announced a £60m increase in contributions to the European Space Agency.

The chancellor said he believes science is important in helping to rebalance the UK economy.

So maybe Labour are right and this alleged budget deficit is just a ploy to reduce the size of the state and increase welfare provision by non-governmental private and informal arrangements? But hang on why would they criticise that? Wasn't it Tony Blair (via president Clinton) that gave us the 'third way'?

Or perhaps this is exactly what it looks like a contradiction by a party that believes in a free market economy over social responsibility?

 

[tony_mac]

If India can afford to invest in space exploration, it suggests India doesn't need aid from the UK. As the UK can afford to invest in space exploration, it suggests the UK doesn't need aid from India.

I don't see any contradiction here.

 

[DarloRich]

I think quite a lot of that "aid" went to UK based companies for equipment associated with space or defense. I guess the government want to try and cover any losses.

Now does any one know a despot who might want some guns?

 

[ainsworth74]

So maybe Labour are right and this alleged budget deficit is just a ploy to reduce the size of the state and increase welfare provision by non-governmental private and informal arrangements?

I'm fairly sure it isn't 'alleged' unless you think the Treasury are cooking the books?

Also I'm not seeing the contradiction, you're going to have to spell it out for me

 

[starrymarkb]

I think quite a lot of that "aid" went to UK based companies for equipment associated with space or defense. I guess the government want to try and cover any losses.

Now does any one know a despot who might want some guns?

IIRC it didn't - they bought from the French... cue much wailing and gnashing from the UK government which made it obvious the 'aid' was more a bribe

 

[DarloRich]

IIRC it didn't - they bought from the French... cue much wailing and gnashing from the UK government which made it obvious the 'aid' was more a bribe

bribe/aid - i dont care as long as they buy it here!

I thought they bought a shed load of Hawks of BAE? ungrateful barstewards - cut them off i say!

 

[starrymarkb]

I think they did in the past, this time we were trying to sell them Typhoons... The French option (Dassualt Rafale) wasn't as advanced but was a lot cheaper!

 

[transmanche]

I'm fairly sure it isn't 'alleged' unless you think the Treasury are cooking the books?

Even Tory commentators are now starting to talk about the "deficit myth"...

 

[ainsworth74]

My point was that, by saying 'alleged' deficit, this suggests that the UK is not in fact running a deficit something that can only be true if the Treasury are cooking the books. Those three claims do not relate to that point and I'm not disputing them.

 

[Ivo]

Yesterday it was announced the the government has apparently decided to withdraw the £200m subsidy provided to India. Conservatives have cited India's investment in its space program.

Today the government has announced a £60m increase in contributions to the European Space Agency.

What's so contradictory about it? We save £140M, while also allowing UK companies the opportunities to develop, instead of giving far more money to country that could then do exactly that. Surely it's about keeping the country internationally competitive?

 

[wintonian]

The contradiction is that I thought we were supposed to be hard up and cutting costs to the bone, and if were saying that other countries shouldn't have a space program if they don't have enough cash to go around, should we be increasing the expenditure on ours?

and No I don't think the treasury have been fiddling the book per say and I do think there is a deficit, the opposition however would likely dispute the size of it.

 

[Eagle]

The contradiction is that I thought we were supposed to be hard up and cutting costs to the bone...

Yes, and we just saved £140 million. And probably created a shedload of jobs in this country too.

Now I'm the last person who'd be seen agreeing with the Conservatives but I really don't see what your point is here... :P

 

[Johnuk123]

Labour said "All the money's gone" but nobody realised quite how bad it was till they saw the books.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

The myth isn't that there is a deficit, but that a deficit is a crisis. We usuly run budget deficits- for the record this includes 15 years of Tory rule prior to 97. That we're running one now when our economy and those of our trading partners are on their knees isn't just expected, its essential.

Its simple. Fewer people in full time work earning less money, so more £ in benefits regardless of the push to tip disabled people off them. So less cash to spend and less money taken by businesses who make less profits, pay less tax and so spending goes up as receipts go down - a deficit. If you cut spending you increase the deficit as you pull yet more money from the economy.

The main difference between the UK and the likes of Greece - the usual misleading comparison - is that we are fiscally sovereign. Our debt is issued in a currency we control and print, so we can physically never run out of money or default on debts, unlike Euro countries who need to acquire hard currency.

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk

 

[martinsh]

Now does any one know a despot who might want some guns?

Mitt Romney ?

 

[Stephen55a1960]

What's so contradictory about it? We save £140M, while also allowing UK companies the opportunities to develop, instead of giving far more money to country that could then do exactly that. Surely it's about keeping the country internationally competitive?

I shall be really controversial here. Why give money to a country that has its own space programme; but also appaling levels of poverty!!

http://www.grameenfoundation.org/asia/india