howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
cannot find the original thread on this but the subject always ignites controversy.
the latest figures show that we will be spending 8.7 billion quid in 2011/2012 rising to 12 billion by 2014.
all other countries lag behind us in their generosity, in a nutshell we spend (as a share of g.d.p.) twice as much as the average for the other g8 countries.
there is considerable disquiet in the ranks of the blue back benchers, the problem for them is that the coalition has ring fenced the money so it would need a u turn from dave.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
I think there is "considerable disquiet" amongst all parties and the population as a whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i doubt if dave is bothered by what the population think jan, he has not even listened to his own back benchers on many issues.
they see him as cosying up to the yellows and sidelining them, of course he has to be nice to nick and chums to ensure that the government functions.
this particular issue will run and run with the public, he is not a thatcher type so i expect him to do another u turn.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
I can respect any person in authority who is brave enough to admit they are wrong, just wish they would do it more often.
Maggie never thought, let alone admit, she was wrong that was her downfall.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Maggie, Jan was mostly right on all the big issues and all those who have followed her are minnows in comparison...
Personally I would cut every penny of overseas aid except that which is in pursuit of our defence interests. I do not understand why DC is so committed to this.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought it was all about promoting british business intersets in the recipient countries.
very little ever goes to helping the needy in the third world.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign aid is about much more than giving aid to the deserving poor!! Too much to outline it all here, but it includes relationship management, inclusion in foreign policy making, commercial promotion and much much more. However, even if it were just a bit of do-gooding, why should we be less bothered about people just because they are poor, on another continent, black, old, not yet known to us personally, or different?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL Jan - I see what you mean....
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
The best description I have heard of overseas aid is 'The transfer of wealth from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries'.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Personally I don't mind oversees aid to poor and needy people, such as supplying clean water to prevent cholera in India...
but I believe the Government should stop sales of arms and weaponry to Third World countries, for moral reasons.
To give an example, India has the most powerful army, navy and airforce after Russia and the USA, and the Indian government is going to purchase yet again hundreds of new warplanes from Russia.
Rissia earns constant revenues on oil and gas, so doesn't really need to sell weapons to get mote money.
Countries like India that go over the top in weapons imports are among those that receive aid from Britain. India also has more millionaires tham there are in Britain, so there is a lot to be pondered upon.
Especially when our Government goes on making cuts left right and centre gere at home!
In other words, it's not that India cannot find the money in their own economy to see to the poor, and as we in Britain pay tax so that billions go to India (just one example among a few) as oversees aid, we people in Britain should tell our Government to get the priorities right, and tell the Indian government to stop importing weapons as if they were expecting a Third World War, and to start taxing their own millionaires more effectively.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
overseas aid would be better spent on the nhs,scools ,colleges and uni's here,allso some of the aid reinvested into jobs for the unemployed.which means a better educated,healter work force helping this country out of a deep dark hole of a resesion.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
from the guardian.
David Cameron has made a scathing attack on his fellow leaders over aid to Africa at the end of their G8 summit, saying they were seen by the public as a bunch of men in suits, more interested in a good lunch than keeping their promises to the world's poorest.
He also issued a broadside against readers of the Daily Mail, reminding them that Britain's aid budget was intended to save the lives of women in childbirth and to spare people in Africa from malaria.
In a polemic issued midway through his G8 press conference at Deauville in France, he even argued it would have been better for Afghanistan if a fraction of the money now spent there by the UK military had earlier instead been spent on aid.
His emotional defence of his spending priorities was made in response to a Daily Mail article which had claimed that a report showing Britain spends more on aid than its G8 partners, was damning.
The prime minister has been under growing pressure from Conservative backbenchers, as well as the defence secretary, Liam Fox, to reduce the growing aid budget in the face of the recession, but clearly believes he will not shift on his promise to raise it to reach the target of 0.7% of British GDP by 2015
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
In a passionate defence of his stance, he said: "I think what people back home think about these summits is that a bunch of people in suits get together, make some promises, particularly to the world's poorest; then they go in and have a big lunch, and forget about the promises. I am not prepared to do that. These are things that matter."
He recalled that he had thought it right that the world's politicians at the G8 summit in 2005 made public pledges to help the world's poorest. But he pointed out that they failed to match those promises of a $50bn (£30bn) increase in aid, falling short by $19bn in real terms, a point he had insisted was in the communique.
and there's more
His officials said that twice in private G8 sessions he raised the inability of world leaders to match their promises; the chief culprits are Germany and Italy.
He went on: "If we are going to get across to the poorest people in the world that we care about their plight, and we want them to join one world with the rest of us, then we have got to make promises and keep promises. Of course it is difficult when we are having to make difficult decisions at home, but I don't think 0.7% of our gross national income is too high a price to pay for trying to save lives."
He then directly addressed Daily Mail readers: "If you are not convinced it is right to vaccinate children against diarrhoea, to try and stop preventable diseases, and to try and save mothers in childbirth, if that does not do it for you, what about this argument?
Dc do a u turn , he must be quite dizzy by now . Can we prove overseas aid goes to those who need it ?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
To my mind, give money when disasters strike and give money directly to bodies who will ensure that the money is spent on what it is given for, but never give it to corrupt governments and as (virtually) all governments in Africa are currupt, never give direct to those governments.
Roger
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Roger and Mark, re the corruption issue I agree totally, refer to my post #10 above.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Mao said: don't give a poor man a fish, give him a rod.
My motto is: give them a spade, and they can earn their food that way!
But I still agree that poor people should be helped when in need, and agree with the view expressed here that the help should go directly to the people who need it.
It doesn't always have to be money, though. We could also supply the products necessary ... for example spades and hoes.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
And in many of the countries concerned - irrigation systems.
My argument against overseas aid, is that it should be under the same cuts regime, as the rest of our many budgets.
How can we make our elderly suffer here, when we increase payments to help elderly people overseas ?
Roger
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
good point roger.
