Downing Street signals intent to cut to the 0.7% Foreign Aid budget

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7472051.html

Theresa May set to cut 0.7% foreign aid spending commitment, Downing Street signals

The law requiring 0.7 per cent of gross national income to be spent on aid will be reviewed - as ministers hunt for badly-needed savings

https://theday.co.uk/images/stories/...oreign-aid.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Independent

Britain’s foreign aid budget is likely to be cut in the next parliament, Theresa May signalled today.

The law requiring 0.7 per cent of gross national income to be spent on aid will be reviewed before 2020, the Prime Minister’s spokeswoman said

The move follows fierce attacks by Conservative MPs and newspapers of the legal commitment, while domestic spending continues to be cut.

There has also been growing criticism of the way some of the £12bn budget is spent, particularly the cash directed through the Government’s private equity arm.

Nevertheless, any move to change the law will be the clearest breach yet with David Cameron’s legacy – and will be condemned by aid agencies.

The possibility of a review first emerged when Chancellor Philip Hammond said that all areas of spending would be re-examined, probably in 2019, before the next Conservative manifesto is produced.

---

Hooray another outbreak of common sense. Cut it to 0% and scrap the Foreign Aid Department.

Oooh I know, aren't I cruel? But you know, cruelty in my eyes is leaving British pensioners who've paid tax all their lives to fund their own care or to deny British people cancer treatments because we haven't any money.

Thoughts?

Lucky people like you don't make it to power, then :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgnesIO

Lucky people like you don't make it to power, then :)

---

uhmm the current government are planning to do what i want so not sure what you're on about

and the current secretary for foreign aid, Priti Patel MP, wants to link aid to British influence/getting our way which i also support

going in my direction isn't it hun x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

uhmm the current government are planning to do what i want so not sure what you're on about

and the current secretary for foreign aid, Priti Patel MP, wants to link aid to British influence/getting our way which i also support

going in my direction isn't it hun x

---

A) You said cut it to 0%. The article doesn't say that.
B) Aid is already linked to getting our way.

Why on earth does the UK give 0.7 and US, Japan 0.2 lol

More fool us I say. Other countries wouldn't help us out if we were in financial trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

uhmm the current government are planning to do what i want so not sure what you're on about

and the current secretary for foreign aid, Priti Patel MP, wants to link aid to British influence/getting our way which i also support

going in my direction isn't it hun x

---

So you want to cut foreign aid
then used that cut aid for influence (which, let's be honest, is the point of this kind of "general" foreign aid)
but are against foreign aid anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak

Why on earth does the UK give 0.7 and US, Japan 0.2 lol

More fool us I say. Other countries wouldn't help us out if we were in financial trouble.

---

Because it's very little to do with helping them out and more on extending a sphere of influence.
It's also a UN target which the UK keeps to, similarly to the NATO target of 2% gdp on military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

Because it's very little to do with helping them out and more on extending a sphere of influence.
It's also a UN target which the UK keeps to, similarly to the NATO target of 2% gdp on military.

---

As America has said though why should they support NATO when majority of countries aren't spending 2% of their GDP on defence? No other country attributes the 0.7% (which I assume is the UN's target?) so why should the UK?

Call it harsh but I 100% agree with Dan that they should look after the people who've been paying into our pot for years and years. I'm not saying cut funding altogether but reduce it - average out what other countries are contributing and if they up theirs we can up ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak

As America has said though why should they support NATO when majority of countries aren't spending 2% of their GDP on defence? No other country attributes the 0.7% (which I assume is the UN's target?) so why should the UK?

Call it harsh but I 100% agree with Dan that they should look after the people who've been paying into our pot for years and years. I'm not saying cut funding altogether but reduce it - average out what other countries are contributing and if they up theirs we can up ours.

---

We are 6th as a %age after Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and The Netherlands. Roughly the same place as we are when ranked by GDP. Obviously whoever wrote the article omitted that on purpose.
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-20...ed-summary.pdf

Seems odd that there's a law on it but surely less than 1% going towards helping people isn't a terrible thing. If the spending is made transparent to make sure the aid is actually aiding people rather than just funding Libyan police or something then I don't see a problem with helping other countries to develop and become better trading partners for us in the future. "America isn't doing it" is a shit excuse for anything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

So you want to cut foreign aidthen used that cut aid for influence (which, let's be honest, is the point of this kind of "general" foreign aid)
but are against foreign aid anyway

---

yes... what's so hard to understand? ideal: no foreign aid. semi-ideal: using foreign aid as soft power.

in my ideal scenario though it doesn't mean i wouldn't help. for example from money and supplies raised by charity campaigns for disaster relief i'd deploy the Royal Navy to distribute it because it'd also act as a training mission.

but you get my line of thinking, putting this country and its people first.