Reducing International aid.

Norfolkred1 said:
While the likes of Pakistan and India are members of the Nuclear family why should we fund them for their starving millions that we apparently give aid for when they really don't care for their own.
Click to expand...
I don't believe we do.
What we do is encourage female emancipation in Pakistan by providing funds & expertise on women starting their own businesses, provide education & training to children & young people so they have an opportunity to not live a life in poverty.
I'm not sure we still provide aid to India but when we did we supported investment in clean energy, UK firms worked on urban infrastructure improvements etc. India is slated to be 3rd largest economy in the world by 2030, seems like a good idea for the UK to ensure they think favourably of us.
 
newusername said:
I don't believe we do.
What we do is encourage female emancipation in Pakistan by providing funds & expertise on women starting their own businesses, provide education & training to children & young people so they have an opportunity to not live a life in poverty.
I'm not sure we still provide aid to India but when we did we supported investment in clean energy, UK firms worked on urban infrastructure improvements etc. India is slated to be 3rd largest economy in the world by 2030, seems like a good idea for the UK to ensure they think favourably of us.
Click to expand...
It’s all a bit of a misnomer isn’t it , what we are are talking about when we say aid a lot of the time is investment.
I don’t think it’s unfair to question why we are giving aid to economies that are perfectly capable and have the resources to look after themselves, yet To invest in this countries is more acceptable. A breakdown of those two categories and which are being cut would help the debate.
 
'The Nuclear Family' - family's fall out (no pun intended), i would have thought that it was a very good reason to maintain the 1st line of defence of having a ministerial & ambassadorial presence across the globe.

the other side of the humanitarian coin;
  • Halve the number of people living in extreme poverty and hunger
  • Ensure that all children receive primary education
  • Promote sexual equality and give women a stronger voice
  • Reduce child death rates
  • Improve the health of mothers
  • Combat HIV & AIDS, malaria and other diseases
  • Make sure the environment is protected
  • Build a global partnership for those working in development.
Is there to improve conditions in partnership to sustain lives and importantly, the quality and usefulness of those lives - across the piece the UK benefits enormously from that - ultimately its a small price to pay.

to cut those ties, links and influence is a folly that will come back to bite us right in the nether regions.
 
Wilf said:
'The Nuclear Family' - family's fall out (no pun intended), i would have thought that it was a very good reason to maintain the 1st line of defence of having a ministerial & ambassadorial presence across the globe.

the other side of the humanitarian coin;
  • Halve the number of people living in extreme poverty and hunger
  • Ensure that all children receive primary education
  • Promote sexual equality and give women a stronger voice
  • Reduce child death rates
  • Improve the health of mothers
  • Combat HIV & AIDS, malaria and other diseases
  • Make sure the environment is protected
  • Build a global partnership for those working in development.
Is there to improve conditions in partnership to sustain lives and importantly, the quality and usefulness of those lives - across the piece the UK benefits enormously from that - ultimately its a small price to pay.

to cut those ties, links and influence is a folly that will come back to bite us right in the nether regions.
Click to expand...
Ties not being cut just less cash
 
Norfolkred1 said:
While the likes of Pakistan and India are members of the Nuclear family why should we fund them for their starving millions that we apparently give aid for when they really don't care for their own.
Click to expand...
Regardless of that, we legally voted that we would.
 
The geography of your birth place is random. Borders are artificial. We would live in a better world if we considered ourselves as one species rather than British or European or Christian or Muslim or black or white.

This is aside from the fact that international aid greases wheels we could all be in a position where e required help.

Denying people a right to life to save a few pounds is pretty abhorrent
 
Laughing said:
The geography of your birth place is random. Borders are artificial. We would live in a better world if we considered ourselves as one species rather than British or European or Christian or Muslim or black or white.

This is aside from the fact that international aid greases wheels we could all be in a position where e required help.

Denying people a right to life to save a few pounds is pretty abhorrent
Click to expand...
Whilst people are getting annoyed at the UK on this where is the bigger outcry for what other members of our species are not doing, like the Europeans, the US their contributions are shameful and abhorrent!
 
FatCat said:
Whilst people are getting annoyed at the UK on this where is the bigger outcry for what other members of our species are not doing, like the Europeans, the US their contributions are shameful and abhorrent!
Click to expand...

Other countries should and could do more absolutely. Does than mean we're morally justified in doing less?

And wasn't one of the reasons for our aid budget being set at the level it was to lead by example and try and put pressure on other comparable nations to do more?
 
I’m happy for us to lead the way. I’d like to see a breakdown of where the money goes, is that available anywhere?
I’d also be interested in a breakdown between emergency aid, developmental aid And investment. My guess would be some of the aid isn’t going to worthy causes, that should be stamped out.

The one example I’ve seen and it’s apparently (inadmissible on this board as it can from the daily mail) is the aid to China.
Let’s be honest studies into syphillis in gay men in China, I struggle with that for a few reasons, one that is not what I would class as an emergency, two, China have the resources to pay for that themselves (they don’t need our help) and three which I think is the crux of the matter , the Chinese have poor form with regards to LGBT rights, if we didn’t pay for this study I expect that they would not. What message are we sending to them by paying for this, it’s as if we condone this and their views. I’m sorry I don’t want to be associated with that and I can think of much we better ways to spend that money.

For seven years we have hit the target, in the exceptional times we are in, the debt being accumulated, to reduce our contributions isn’t great but People are talking about it as if it’s some sort of crime.
 
FatCat, surely you must be aware that since it’s a percentage of GDP then the actual amount paid out would naturally be lower during these times of reduced GDP?
 
Primus84 said:
FatCat, surely you must be aware that since it’s a percentage of GDP then the actual amount paid out would naturally be lower during these times of reduced GDP?
Click to expand...
yes. It’s a percentage that’s always going to be the case.
 
Primus84 said:
Ok so if it’s a percentage and would naturally lead to a lower amount why does the rate need to be cut? In effect it’s being reduced twice over.
Click to expand...
for the reasons given, it is an exceptional year where spending and debt has hit record levels, the gvt are trying to cut back where they can.
 
FatCat said:
for the reasons given, it is an exceptional year where spending and debt has hit record levels, the gvt are trying to cut back where they can.
Click to expand...
So it’s such an exceptional year we have to reduce further an already reduced payment to areas of the world in real need all the while we increased by a huge amount defence spending? Total nonsense once again.
 
Primus84 said:
So it’s such an exceptional year we have to reduce further an already reduced payment to areas of the world in real need all the while we increased by a huge amount defence spending? Total nonsense once again.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point when you put it like that personally I would vote for maintaining spending on aid at (0.7per cent) over increased spending on defence.

On aid there was meant to be a review this year as to how it was been spent, if the money donated was spent on its intended purpose and not syphoned off. I was reading the below which i find disgusting and even criminal

“But recent reports have unearthed issues with foreign aid spending. For example, a study by three economists published in February found that billions of pounds of aid allocated to the most in-need nations ends up in tax havens.

The study, Elite Capture of Foreign Aid, tracked the flow of aid money to 22 nations, finding that as much as a sixth ended up in tax havens like Switzerland.”

If someone could fix how the money is spent and ensures it’s not stolen then we would be in a much better place.
 
SmallTown said:
Will of the people. We voted for a Tory manifesto that said we’d give 0.7%

you can’t go against the will of the people
Click to expand...
People didn’t vote Tory because of foreign aid. I dare say the majority of people who lent their vote to the Tories don’t want us to pay any foreign aid whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top