Migration crisis is putting the UK at grave risk.

[tomtomagain]

By having a few less nuclear warheads, not bothering building aircraft carriers that don't have any planes and not mobilising armed forces to testing weapons on people?

But how is any of that going to end poverty?

The reason that these people are poor is because they don't have any skills or possessions that we need.

The reason that they are poor is not because the UK tax payer funds a wide range of projects and activities.

So if we scrapped trident, aircraft carriers etc what would you do? Give the money "saved" to the people in the refugee camps?

What would you then do about the skilled engineers, scientists and the many thousands of people in the UK who's livelihoods depend on the these programmes and who would now be out of work?

[seanraaron]

But how is any of that going to end poverty?

The reason that these people are poor is because they don't have any skills or possessions that we need.

The reason that they are poor is not because the UK tax payer funds a wide range of projects and activities.

So if we scrapped trident, aircraft carriers etc what would you do? Give the money "saved" to the people in the refugee camps?

What would you then do about the skilled engineers, scientists and the many thousands of people in the UK who's livelihoods depend on the these programmes and who would now be out of work?

Right now the "solution" appears to be ASBOS and sanctioning benefits for not applying for jobs which may have no relevance to the applicant. You may as well wall off entire neighbourhoods and make them physical prisons for the poor leftovers for whom we have "no use." As far as the people put out of work by not building more nukes, well, I guess they go on benefits like anyone else whose usefulness has been outlived.

Personally I'd look back to Roosevelt and the WPA: lots of jobs were created by the state just to stop people being idle and giving them a feeling of usefulness. They did great things with census, recording of music and culture that would otherwise have been lost in addition to large-scale projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority power generation scheme.

[tomtomagain]

Right now the "solution" appears to be ASBOS and sanctioning benefits for not applying for jobs which may have no relevance to the applicant. You may as well wall off entire neighbourhoods and make them physical prisons for the poor leftovers for whom we have "no use." As far as the people put out of work by not building more nukes, well, I guess they go on benefits like anyone else whose usefulness has been outlived.

Personally I'd look back to Roosevelt and the WPA: lots of jobs were created by the state just to stop people being idle and giving them a feeling of usefulness. They did great things with census, recording of music and culture that would otherwise have been lost in addition to large-scale projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority power generation scheme.

You might not like the fact that a man from Eritrea is poor because he has no skills or assets that people in the West need but it does not stop it being true.

He is not poor because of anything that we have done.

..... So you would stop doing projects you don't like and build a new Hoover damn? And how would the Eritrean man contribute to that? He wouldn't. He would still be poor - the Nuclear scientists, engineers and ship-builders from the projects you had shut would be in a better place to contribute to that project.

..... So what would you do? Educate and up-skill the Eritrean man? Why is it the UK tax-payers responsibility to educate him?

There are 7 billion people on this planet. 5 billion of whom living in poverty. You want to pay for all of them? Or just the ones who manage to get into the UK?

[seanraaron]

If you don't want people banging down your doors then you need to make home nice. Global wealth redistribution is the only real answer or moving beyond artificial constructs like money that are only used to reinforce social divisions. I know, it's unrealistic Star Trek b.s., but the reality is unless you're going to build a new Berlin Wall complete with machine gun towers surrounding Europe, you will not stop the human tide that's coming. Just imagine if China implodes - how are you going to deal with the tens of millions of migrants that would result from that?

Better to invest in Africa today and work to sort out Syria, whilst also capitulating to the Turks.

I actually meant the WPA-work to apply to people in the UK. People aren't necessarily leaving Eritrea because they're poor. It doesn't sound like a terribly nice place to live for political reasons, so use Morocco or Algeria instead maybe?

I'm also considering Europe as a whole - unless you think the French would stop people coming into the UK if we allow the EU to collapse?

[stek]

But how is any of that going to end poverty?

The reason that these people are poor is because they don't have any skills or possessions that we need.

The reason that they are poor is not because the UK tax payer funds a wide range of projects and activities.

So if we scrapped trident, aircraft carriers etc what would you do? Give the money "saved" to the people in the refugee camps?

What would you then do about the skilled engineers, scientists and the many thousands of people in the UK who's livelihoods depend on the these programmes and who would now be out of work?

Oxfam put the cost to end world poverty at £40b. UK gov estimates Trident replacement will cost £100b.

[DodgyAgent]

Oxfam put the cost to end world poverty at £40b. UK gov estimates Trident replacement will cost £100b.

And how exactly should the 40 bn be administered.? You people are quite pathetic in how you make these sweeping cliched statements. Let me start £40 bn less my 20% placement fee for finding them all jobs

[vetran]

we do 'invest in Africa' the problems is that so much of it is siphoned off to buy BMWs & Mercedes for the princes.

We could pour everything we had into it and Africa would stay a fly infested hole.

There are some good initiatives trying to bring it up however the most likely thing is Africa will sell most of itself to China and they will march in & take over.

Bringing its population here and expecting them to enrich us is somewhat hopeful.

[stek]

And how exactly should the 40 bn be administered.? You people are quite pathetic in how you make these sweeping cliched statements. Let me start £40 bn less my 20% placement fee for finding them all jobs

Try and think before you post. Think how the £40b might be used, i.e. not by just giving it to people or finding them jobs. Come back to me when you have a cogent answer.

[DodgyAgent]

Try and think before you post. Think how the £40b might be used, i.e. not by just giving it to people or finding them jobs. Come back to me when you have a cogent answer.

We have to start from somewhere. Clearly you have better ideas. You could start by analysing what happens (geopolitically as well as practically) when we get rid of trident and the rest of the armed forces we do not use

[tomtomagain]

Oxfam put the cost to end world poverty at £40b. UK gov estimates Trident replacement will cost £100b.

Oxfam is an organisation dedicated to taking one group of peoples money and giving it to others. Of course they'll put a figure on it.

£40b would not end poverty. Nor would £400b Or even £4000B.

Because poverty is not caused by a lack of money. It is caused by a lack of skills and assets that the poor person can use to exchange with another person.

If you want people in different parts of the world to have the same life-style and opportunity as you then you need to ensure that

• That their countries are safe and stable.
• That they live in a relatively corruption free environment.
• The have access to the same markets to sell their goods and services.
• That they have access to the same education.

Handing over cash does nothing to help address those issues. Letting a few thousand people into the UK does nothing to address those issues.