A clear reason for endorsing Jeremy Hunt

Third World

Red = First World; Blue = Third World. Not good phrases but a clear need for some nations to help others!

The choice about to face 120,000 to 160,000 Tory party members is far from clear, both prospective leaders of their party have very substantial failings in far too many areas to be credible party leaders, let alone to then be given the authority of Prime Minister. As has been made clear this will be the first time in our nations history when the decision regarding who will be elected will have that election decided, not on ordinary people from a range of different backgrounds, but from a single political party membership. In the past the decision making has been based on Members of Parliament, or has been based on a selection by party members that has taken place whilst the parties have been in opposition and then the entire voting public have selected the Prime Minister. However given that one of the two candidates will be selected as Prime Minister it is clearly vital that Jeremy Hunt is the person chosen. Recent headlines suggesting that Johnson is prepared to freeze and even reverse the tax for matters such as alcohol and tobacco is probably sufficient reason but the crucial matter in my view is what was discussed in Parliament on Monday. The debate related to the funding of the Department for International Development and one of the people speaking was Chris Law the SNP spokesperson for International Development. Chris made a very clear statement:

“the House will find that one of the two Conservative party leadership candidates does not share the view of the hon. Member for Stirling, although he and I do share the same view on the 0.7% target. Let me put this into perspective: that 0.7% is 7p in every £10, as we have heard several times, or 70p in every £100. That is our commitment. When I visit schools and ask children, who are a great litmus test of where society is, to disagree with that spending, none of them raise their hand; in fact, they often suggest that we should spend more. Why, then, do the leadership candidates for Prime Minister support such brutal and callous action? For example, the one-time leadership candidate Ms McVey said that the UK should halve its aid spending, and blamed the Government’s failure to fund the police on their aid commitment. We all know that what the right hon. Member for Tatton said is not the case. Although the right hon. Lady was quickly eliminated from the leadership race, the favourite to be next Prime Minister does not fare any better. Boris Johnson has previously said that aid spending should be used in the UK’s

“political, commercial and diplomatic interests”,

and has called for the Department’s purpose to be changed from poverty reduction to furthering

“the nation’s overall strategic goals”.”

It is therefore crystal clear for anyone who has a vote and who recognises the value of us (as one of the other debaters pointed out) as the fifth largest economy in the world, to use a modest amount of our funds to assist other nations improve their wellbeing and grow in our world. To do this will require voting for Hunt rather than Johnson!

About ianchisnall

I am passionate about the need for public policies to be made accessible to everyone, especially those who want to improve the wellbeing of their communities. I am particularly interested in issues related to crime and policing as well as health services and strategic planning.
This entry was posted in Church Teaching, Economics, Parliament and Democracy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s