And so, I shall open the great can of worms that is this thread, and lets get something clear from the onset.
Any nastyness, high horsing, patronising, belitting comments that are not made in the spirit of general metro banter will result in the Yellow and Red tsk card system being put into place. And I'm serious. I want a sensible discussion on this as it's VERY interesting.
So, the international development budget is to be increased despite the other cuts. What is your view of this and why?
and no, this doesn't break my rule of starting every topic with "So," as the first bit was a disclaimer. So there/
The International Aid Budget
No amount of money can undo some of the damage this country has done to the planet. For all its ceremony and public relations pizazz, the Commonwealth Games is a gift-wrapped, sugar coated collection of countries that have, in the words of Bill Bailey, been "brought under the yoke of imperial aggression". I think we should set a precedent in the world. For as much as people may whinge about deficits and debts, this country is comfortable and profitable. We don't have malaria, AIDS or typhoid, our doctors are more concerned with boob jobs and combating the effects of our indulgent booze/fags/chocolate/chips lifestyles.
So I agree with the principal of giving money to the international community so that our fellow man and woman can develop. Whether it should have been raised at this particular moment in time is however in my opinion a bit questionable... if we are cutting jobs at home in order to give more money to the international community, I would have erred on the side of perhaps merely maintaining our commitments at current levels without, in my view, increasing them without any valid non-ideological reason. Cameron may be pushing this caring conservatism angle a bit too far.
So I agree with the principal of giving money to the international community so that our fellow man and woman can develop. Whether it should have been raised at this particular moment in time is however in my opinion a bit questionable... if we are cutting jobs at home in order to give more money to the international community, I would have erred on the side of perhaps merely maintaining our commitments at current levels without, in my view, increasing them without any valid non-ideological reason. Cameron may be pushing this caring conservatism angle a bit too far.
Aren't they just honouring commitments already made though? That was the impression I got, but I could have completely misunderstood.Alexia wrote:Whether it should have been raised at this particular moment in time is however in my opinion a bit questionable... if we are cutting jobs at home in order to give more money to the international community, I would have erred on the side of perhaps merely maintaining our commitments at current levels without, in my view, increasing them without any valid non-ideological reason. Cameron may be pushing this caring conservatism angle a bit too far.
-
DVB Cornwall
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Fri 24 Jun, 2005 21.42
So,
*sorry
IA is an easy one to be hit over the head with both domestically and internationally. It's fairly tight and we've been 'promised' more control over the scope so hopefully what's sent will be directed more positively and to deserving locations.
*sorry
IA is an easy one to be hit over the head with both domestically and internationally. It's fairly tight and we've been 'promised' more control over the scope so hopefully what's sent will be directed more positively and to deserving locations.
The overseas aid budget has been protected from cuts and will rise to £11.5bn over the next four years. The effect will be that the UK will reach the United Nations goal of giving 0.7% of national income in aid by 2013. Osborne predicted that this would make Britain the first "major country" to cross that threshold.
So in other words, Cameron/Osbourne is sucking up to the UN, fulfilling their "vote blue, go green" ethos.
-
Dr Lobster*
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14
i'm rather surprised the tories didn't cut the international aid budget, they did seem to favour punishing the least fortunate and well off the most with various benefit cuts and tax rises (well, the labour government were certainly guilty of that too, with the 10p tax rate).
i think all g8 nations should be made to contribute a proportionate amount of money (based on gdp or whatever) to an international aid budget.
it's absolutely right that as wealthy nations we help develop those which aren't and are able to provide financial support and military personnel in the event of natural disaster in poorer countries which don't have their own infrastructure to support themselves.
as somebody who works in the public sector, i do see on a daily bases a horrifying culture of waste. people have a mindset in which they think the government just prints money.
there is SO SO MANY duff projects which the various public sector organisations embark on which don't get media coverage that piss hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds down the drain every single day, i hope that when these budget cuts are implemented it's these things which get the cut rather than important front line services which the vulnerable depend upon.
i think all g8 nations should be made to contribute a proportionate amount of money (based on gdp or whatever) to an international aid budget.
it's absolutely right that as wealthy nations we help develop those which aren't and are able to provide financial support and military personnel in the event of natural disaster in poorer countries which don't have their own infrastructure to support themselves.
as somebody who works in the public sector, i do see on a daily bases a horrifying culture of waste. people have a mindset in which they think the government just prints money.
there is SO SO MANY duff projects which the various public sector organisations embark on which don't get media coverage that piss hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds down the drain every single day, i hope that when these budget cuts are implemented it's these things which get the cut rather than important front line services which the vulnerable depend upon.
Upload service: http://www.metropol247.co.uk/uploadservice
It recently came to my attention that our international aid is being used to protect rural Indian villages from stampeding elephants who are rather cross about the ever-increasing encroachment of their natural habitat.
Now why should that be a 'commitment' of our government?
Children are still being neglected and abused in the UK. £11.5bn would prevent and stop a lot of suffering. What are we going to tell them when they're older? Sorry, social services didn't help you because your government was busy keeping elephants away from Indian villages?
It boils my piss. We expect our politicians to do their absolute damnedest to protect the most vulnerable people in the UK from harm and they are neglecting those responsibilities in favour of keeping up with the international who cares most about climate change and African famine Joneses.
'Commitment' indeed, it's an insult. The government should be fully committed to the British people whom they were elected and paid to serve.
Now why should that be a 'commitment' of our government?
Children are still being neglected and abused in the UK. £11.5bn would prevent and stop a lot of suffering. What are we going to tell them when they're older? Sorry, social services didn't help you because your government was busy keeping elephants away from Indian villages?
It boils my piss. We expect our politicians to do their absolute damnedest to protect the most vulnerable people in the UK from harm and they are neglecting those responsibilities in favour of keeping up with the international who cares most about climate change and African famine Joneses.
'Commitment' indeed, it's an insult. The government should be fully committed to the British people whom they were elected and paid to serve.
Okay Chie - what would you do with that £11.5bn to stop all that suffering?Chie wrote:Children are still being neglected and abused in the UK. £11.5bn would prevent and stop a lot of suffering. What are we going to tell them when they're older? Sorry, social services didn't help you because your government was busy keeping elephants away from Indian villages?
That's an interesting quote, do you happen to have a source for that (not that I don't believe you I should aded, just curious)?Chie wrote:It recently came to my attention that our international aid is being used to protect rural Indian villages from stampeding elephants who are rather cross about the ever-increasing encroachment of their natural habitat.
"He has to be larger than bacon"
Isn't this one of those cases where a hell of a lot more money is spent on child benefit, education for all and also anti-poverty measures in the UK than this? We don't know how much is spent on the elephant thing, but it's probably not as much per person as was spent on you or me in a single year of primary school, and this is life and/or death stuff.Chie wrote:It recently came to my attention that our international aid is being used to protect rural Indian villages from stampeding elephants who are rather cross about the ever-increasing encroachment of their natural habitat.
Now why should that be a 'commitment' of our government?
Children are still being neglected and abused in the UK. £11.5bn would prevent and stop a lot of suffering. What are we going to tell them when they're older? Sorry, social services didn't help you because your government was busy keeping elephants away from Indian villages?
It boils my piss. We expect our politicians to do their absolute damnedest to protect the most vulnerable people in the UK from harm and they are neglecting those responsibilities in favour of keeping up with the international who cares most about climate change and African famine Joneses.
'Commitment' indeed, it's an insult. The government should be fully committed to the British people whom they were elected and paid to serve.
Knight knight
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
I just don't know - and that's the truth.
My instinct is that we, and other G8 nations, should be helping seriously poor countries with aid and development. The caveat to that is that we should be crystal clear what financial aid is there to support, not just cutting a cheque and putting it in the hands of potentially unscrupulous types. Aid should be measurable in its deliverables, and not just nebulous goodwill.
0.7% of our domestic income sounds so little, but £11bn doesn't - especially when £80bn is what's being cut from our budgets.
There must be payback of sorts (tsk @ giving to receive
) in terms of exports from these countries, and the fact that those growing economies may have positive knock on for ours; but aside from that I'm confused why the tories see this is as something to fanfare given their massively over-egged cuts to our own economy.
What's your take on this Pete?
My instinct is that we, and other G8 nations, should be helping seriously poor countries with aid and development. The caveat to that is that we should be crystal clear what financial aid is there to support, not just cutting a cheque and putting it in the hands of potentially unscrupulous types. Aid should be measurable in its deliverables, and not just nebulous goodwill.
0.7% of our domestic income sounds so little, but £11bn doesn't - especially when £80bn is what's being cut from our budgets.
There must be payback of sorts (tsk @ giving to receive
) in terms of exports from these countries, and the fact that those growing economies may have positive knock on for ours; but aside from that I'm confused why the tories see this is as something to fanfare given their massively over-egged cuts to our own economy.What's your take on this Pete?