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.

I wouldn't say giving less than 1% to people whose lives have been torn apart is putting the British people second tbh

if that's good for you @FlyingJesus;

but personally if my family member was dying of cancer and got told they couldn't be treated because treatment costs exceeded a certain amount whilst the Government hands over £11bn a year to chronically unsolvable & corrupt countries i'd be more than apoplectic. Apply the same to the homeless here, pensioners (life time taxpayers) living without heating and so on.

Not sure why we're paying out for these countries when they got their 'independence' 50 years ago. time to let 'em have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

---

Again; this is already the case.

So what you're saying Dan is you want the government to pay for everyone here to have houses, utilities, and whatever healthcare they want, and it should come from taxes. Didn't realise you'd become a socialist

@FlyingJesus;

better than handing it out overseas, yep.

Good to know that you're more willing to go completely against your beliefs that you've been trying to force on the world for years than help someone foreign

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Good to know that you're more willing to go completely against your beliefs that you've been trying to force on the world for years than help someone foreign

---

it's called realism because you don't always get 100% of what you want, yeah? it's like how i've said in the past how i'd have taken EFTA membership over EU membership even though my ultimate want was a simple FTA. y'know, have some flexibility where you may not get an outcome you one hundred percent agree with but which comes your way in some regards.

but yeah i would rather help someone British who's paid into the system than someone who is foreign. Correct! just as if you have a family member in financial need of a bed to sleep in you help them out whereas you don't invite a tramp into your house x

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.

---

Sweden gives 1.40% God damn it, cant we lower it to like 0.5% >.<

There's a big difference between making a compromise to make small victories and suddenly turning socialist just to avoid helping people lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricaAmanda

Sweden gives 1.40% God damn it, cant we lower it to like 0.5% >.<

---

Thanks for the figures - I had no idea what others were contributing. I'd be asking serious questions on some countries contributions and I still think the UK's payment is too high. If only it were law - OK want to be a part of the EU? 1% of your GDP has to go to foreign aid. No arguments, no countries taking the mick.

I know this wouldn't apply to Canada/America etc but you get the point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak

Thanks for the figures - I had no idea what others were contributing. I'd be asking serious questions on some countries contributions and I still think the UK's payment is too high. If only it were law - OK want to be a part of the EU? 1% of your GDP has to go to foreign aid. No arguments, no countries taking the mick.

I know this wouldn't apply to Canada/America etc but you get the point

---

What is it with some people?

I thought people voted to leave the EU as they wanted power back to the UK. Yet here you are suggesting we only do something if we are forced to do it?

and lol at dan being a socialist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgnesIO

What is it with some people?

I thought people voted to leave the EU as they wanted power back to the UK. Yet here you are suggesting we only do something if we are forced to do it?

and lol at dan being a socialist

---

What does this have to do with the UK voting to leave the EU?

and yes - Example: Hey Poland, the EU requires 1% of your GDP for foreign aid or your membership is suspended. Me thinks that'd get sorted pretty quickly. Everyone pays the same then no one can argue.. OH GERMANY ONLY PAY X AND WE PAY MORE IT'S NOT FAIR haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak

Thanks for the figures - I had no idea what others were contributing. I'd be asking serious questions on some countries contributions and I still think the UK's payment is too high. If only it were law - OK want to be a part of the EU? 1% of your GDP has to go to foreign aid. No arguments, no countries taking the mick.

I know this wouldn't apply to Canada/America etc but you get the point

---

It's funny you say that since the EU already kind of does that, more specifically it invests in infrastructure and projects in undeveloped areas. We don't have a lot of these compared to most other EU countries, hence why we're a net contributor. We also pay into the EU less than both Germany and France, so it's not really as simple as much of a black and white issue as people like to make out.

@dbgtz;

It is black and white really, because why should we pay to fix up parts of Poland and Spain when many areas in this country outside of London badly need infrastructure investment? It pisses most average people off when we're being told "sorry that 120 yo Victorian bridge can't be widened cos we have not got the money even tho it really needs it" and then they see we've paid for new sewers in Barcelona.

@FlyingJesus;

Not sure exactly what's so socialist about it. I couldn't care what the Foreign Aid budget was diverted to SO LONG as it is spent on people in this country. It's like saying because I don't ideally want an NHS that I can't support the NHS spending its money wisely becuz lolz socialism. Just because I don't get my own way on everything doesn't mean I don't want the best results, ie govt spending.

Not sure why the focus is shifting to the EU. I was only using that as an example. It isn't a very good example at that :P

You're not sure what's socialist about wanting the government to dictate spending more and be in total control of distribution of wealth? Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

You're not sure what's socialist about wanting the government to dictate spending more and be in total control of distribution of wealth? Really?

---

if the government is spending X amount of money then even if we find that level of spending undesirable (as i do) we surely want that X amount to be spent wisely rather than wasted. so that's not us being muh socialistz just practical and realist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

@dbgtz;

It is black and white really, because why should we pay to fix up parts of Poland and Spain when many areas in this country outside of London badly need infrastructure investment? It pisses most average people off when we're being told "sorry that 120 yo Victorian bridge can't be widened cos we have not got the money even tho it really needs it" and then they see we've paid for new sewers in Barcelona.

@FlyingJesus;

Not sure exactly what's so socialist about it. I couldn't care what the Foreign Aid budget was diverted to SO LONG as it is spent on people in this country. It's like saying because I don't ideally want an NHS that I can't support the NHS spending its money wisely becuz lolz socialism. Just because I don't get my own way on everything doesn't mean I don't want the best results, ie govt spending.

---

You've counter argued against a point I haven't made. What I was saying isn't black and white is looking at our 0.7% and immediately thinking we spend more abroad which is false. Plus the fact that this article presented us as the biggest spender which is also false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

You've counter argued against a point I haven't made.

---

Surely not