Lord Duckhunter

International aid should be cut and cut heavily, it is the new "immigration" debate , with nobody allowed to discuss it and the money we waste. In the last five years for which data are available, Britain has given £8.7 million in development aid to Singapore, whose gross domestic product per capita is the fourth highest in the world, and 46 per cent higher than our own. Over the same period, we have given aid to Slovenia, Malta, the Czech Republic and Hungary, all First World countries, fellow members of the EU, and two of whom are even in the euro. In the last year for which figures are available, Britain also gave £380,000 in aid to the enormously wealthy Saudi Arabia. Paid £40.2 million last year to the economic superpower that is China, now officially classified by the World Bank as a "middle-income country". In 2007/8, we gave India £312 million – Making it the largest single recipient of British aid. Can it be right that the British taxpayer gives such sums to a nation which can afford its own nuclear weapons? India even has a a significant overseas aid programme of its own. It's complete and utter madness that nobody has the balls in Govt (of any colour) and say, "we just can't afford it".

We had 13 years of a Labour Govt (with massive majorities) to close these loopholes and make the tax system fairer, why didn't they?

I thought Gordon Bean preached "fairness" for all and equal chance for "every" child. Allowing every child to benefit from Academies is surely the right thing. There are 2 sides to this arguement, you are either against them, or for them.You seem to be for them for some and against them for others. Oh by the way, Tony Blair, who set these up was quoted thus "In a few years time when all schools will be academies, we'll see a transformed education system." http://www.northampton-academy.org/news/tony-blair-visits-northampton-academy Do you know more than the bloke whose Govt set them up?

Things will never be "fair" whilst someone "reigns over us" on the basis of their birth .

So the lefties arguement seems to be that these were a good thing when Labour set them up, but a bad thing now because the Tories AND Lib/Dems are prepared to embrace them?

I thought Cable came across very poorly, but even before the outcome of the election his star was starting to wane.There were a few times during the election even when defending his policies, he looked flustered, so I'm not sure it's the U turns that are doing it (although they dont help). His way of speaking makes him sound a bit hesitatant and when you're under pressure over policies, you need to sound sure and firm, I'm not sure he does.

I thought Harriet did well too, I get the feeling there is a lot of respect for her from all sides of the house. I used to enjoy her ding dongs with William Hague and she went from being outclassed to holding her own against Hague in a very short time. I thought Cameron had some great lines at her expense, asking why she wasn't standing against 2 Brothers and a "man who wont let his wife stand", and then saying her Hubby was the first male candidate to win from a all womens short list. I think the Brothers should take a deep breath and go for HH.

The Lib/Dems wer very clear during the election that in the event of a hung Parliament they would side with the party that gave them the best option in forcing through their views. They made no secret of the fact that they would deal with the Tory Party, despite many people (myself included) believing this was just a ploy to stop the "vote Clegg,get Brown" line, and that there was no way they would support the Tory Party.Surely no Lib/Dem supporters truely believed they would form the next Govt, so they were always going to be in some sort of power sharing agreement. For every left leaning Lib/Dem that is against this, there is a right leaning (mainly southern based) Lib/Dem behind it. The only reason the Tories failed to get an overall majority was their inability to take winnable seats of the Lib/Dems in Tory/Right leaning areas, therefore my view is that these areas will be happy with the present arrangement.

To be fair, she doesn't think it's a big deal.

It is a staff car park for maternity staff only (as the Maternity is away from the main hospital), she pays for a barrier card to get in.

My wife is a midwife and she has to pay for her parking, she pays an amount weekly which they deduct from her wages.

If the Govt said you save £250 for your children and when they're 18 we'll match it, that's encouraging them. The feckless will just be given the money and withdraw it at 18, without saving an extra penny. Just going round giving people our money willy nilly is not "noble". If we're going to just give people money I would rather it went to pensioners, rather than 18 year olds.

I dont call just handing out our money to people "noble". Letting people keep more of the money they EARN is noble. Just giving everyone £250 regardless of wealth, lifestyle, or behaviours is just plain daft. Any benefit should either be a safety net for the vulnerable, or in place to drive certain behaviours and reward people who do the right thing.

Massive cuts are coming as we've run out of money. If the Leftie's are getting themselves into rage over this small insignificant bribe from the Labour Party, what are they going to be like when the really big stuff arrives? We are spending more money than we get in, that has to stop and we need to address the massive deficit.There is no pain free way of getting ourselves out of this mess, a mess caused by the global situation, but made worse by Labour's mismangement of the public finances (again). Along with this measure I would like to see Family benefit stopped for all but basic tax rate payers, WFTC stopped for anyone earning over £35,000. I would also like to see the overseas aid budget slashed by 50%, let's get our finances in order and then we can start giving more to the world's poorest.Why should pensioners in this country have VAT raised on goods they want to buy, whilst still pouring millions into Countries thousends of miles from here? Oversea's aid is great when we can afford it, but at present we can't.

It wasn't a "Great idea", and it was our money.From my understanding it is a universal benefit, therefore a higher rated taxpayers children are able to get it. Money going from the public revenue into the pockets of rich kids.It's maddness. David Laws said today it is "deceiving" people if they were handed funds that were from borrowed money. If you want to give kids from poor backgrounds something to build on, educate them to a higher standard, don't just throw a little bit of money at them.

Why is this put down as a "Tory Policy", the Lib Dems were against them as well. It was just a typical Labour policy of bribing us with our own money.Now they should abolish WFTC and Child benefit for top rated tax payers.

We do seem to have a strange attitude towards sacked Managers in this Country. It's as if once they've failed somewhere they are put down as a failure. 2 of the big stories this year were Holloway and Roy Hodgson and yet at Leicester and Blackburn they both ended up relegated and sacked. If we had listened to Coventry supporters we'd never have appointed WGS. Abroad Managers seem to get sacked regulary, and still carry on with their careers. Like Holloway appears to have done, if Managers take time to consider why they failed and then change their approach in line with that thinking, they can come back stronger.

Neil Innes is great, Is The Hawk still going strong in Canada, or has he hung up his rock and roll shoes?

Robin Cook resigned over the Iraq war, but Short backed it and voted for it. She only became all moral and against it once it was obvious Blair was going to sack her. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2863277.stm

So you be support the raising of the tax threashold then? Why with 13 years of power didn't Labour do the same, and will they be supporting the measure when it goes through parliament?

Did anyone see Abbott on "This week" last night? Digby Jones put her on the spot with "what would you do then?" and she waffled and looked puzzled.

Didn't John Smith write the "shadow budget" that contributed greatly to Kinnocks '92 defeat?

The Labour Party is all about spin, not policies. If the rank and file's views were reflected in their leader Abbott would be their "man".She is nearer to the grassroots position's than Miliband or Burnham.

Portillo wipes the floor with her every week.

I look forward to seeing her on "This week" tonight. Perhaps Wiggy Neil will grill her over policies..