ChatterBank3 mins ago
Can We Depend On Mrs May To Rip Up Cameron's Overseas Pledge, Which Costs Us Around £12Billion A Year?
34 Answers
Answers
My goodness, we can but hope, although I doubt it. Overseas aid - the subject guaranteed to make my blood boil and the red mist descend. It mostly goes to the rat hole countries where the people are too backwards or too religious to drag themselves anywhere near the 21st Century, and so do nothing to help themselves. Remember the Ebola outbreak? People had to be...
13:55 Wed 13th Jul 2016
The saddest thing about this is that Mr Cameron cites his Foreign Aid legislation as one of his proudest achievements whilst in office. I cannot see how diverting £12bn a year of taxpayers’ hard earned dosh to foreigners, with much of it buying new Mercedes limousines and private jets, is anything at all to be proud of. It may be a justifiable claim if the UK was awash with spare cash. But it is not. It is borrowing around £80bn annually to make ends meet (with £12bn of the ends being this budget) and owes around £1.6 trillion. To be proud of the fact that you have forced taxpayers to fund even more borrowing so that you can give it away seems a little strange.
I keep reading that Mr Cameron was a good/fine/great/outstanding Prime Minister. I must have been washing my hair when the good bits of his premiership occurred. Furthermore, he has shown utter contempt for the electorate when it had the temerity to vote in a referendum (which he called) against his wishes. His reaction: “I’m off. Some other poor sod can sort it out!”. It speaks volumes that his proudest achievement is doling out money which we haven’t got to foreigners, many of whom hate us.
I doubt Mrs May will alter his "proud legacy". The entire political elite seems obsessed with the welfare of foreigners, often forgetting they are supposed to be looking after the UK and its inhabitants, and I doubt she will prove to be any exception.
I keep reading that Mr Cameron was a good/fine/great/outstanding Prime Minister. I must have been washing my hair when the good bits of his premiership occurred. Furthermore, he has shown utter contempt for the electorate when it had the temerity to vote in a referendum (which he called) against his wishes. His reaction: “I’m off. Some other poor sod can sort it out!”. It speaks volumes that his proudest achievement is doling out money which we haven’t got to foreigners, many of whom hate us.
I doubt Mrs May will alter his "proud legacy". The entire political elite seems obsessed with the welfare of foreigners, often forgetting they are supposed to be looking after the UK and its inhabitants, and I doubt she will prove to be any exception.
It wasn't Cameron's, he just inherited it off Gordon Brown.
Basically all the G10 countries (i.e., the leading countries in the world), have pledged to give 0.7% of GDP to third world causes.
Just wait a couple of years until the economy tanks and we will be a second world country and won't have to pay.
Basically all the G10 countries (i.e., the leading countries in the world), have pledged to give 0.7% of GDP to third world causes.
Just wait a couple of years until the economy tanks and we will be a second world country and won't have to pay.
"Basically all the G10 countries (i.e., the leading countries in the world), have pledged to give 0.7% of GDP to third world causes."
Yes they all pledged to do it. But as far as i know only the UK (under Mr Cameron) passed legislation to enforce it. This has effectively bound Parliament (unless it can be bothered to repeal the law) and it is ridiculous. Furthermore, only five other countries – Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg (Europe’s richest nation per head of population) managed to keep their pledge in 2015. It seems many talk a good talk but are a bit reticent when it comes to parting with the readies. A few other salient facts: the UK is the world’s second largest contributor to Foreign Aid (after the USA). It pays more than Germany, and twice as much as France and Japan. The USA devotes just 0.17% of its income to foreign aid. In 2015 India received £150m from the UK’s overseas aid budget whilst running a space programme and having a £1.6bn overseas aid budget of its own.
The notion that Foreign Aid somehow benefits the UK is a bit flakey. People donate to charity (which effectively FA is) after they have taken care of their own and when they can afford it. The UK is currently not taking care of its own (this government stands accused of implementing severe austerity which has left people dying in the gutters) and it cannot afford it. The fact that it is enshrined in law how much the UK must give to foreigners regardless of its own financial situation is preposterous but it is said to be one of Mr Cameron’s proudest achievements. If that’s what he's most proud of we should all be thankful that he’s gone.
Yes they all pledged to do it. But as far as i know only the UK (under Mr Cameron) passed legislation to enforce it. This has effectively bound Parliament (unless it can be bothered to repeal the law) and it is ridiculous. Furthermore, only five other countries – Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg (Europe’s richest nation per head of population) managed to keep their pledge in 2015. It seems many talk a good talk but are a bit reticent when it comes to parting with the readies. A few other salient facts: the UK is the world’s second largest contributor to Foreign Aid (after the USA). It pays more than Germany, and twice as much as France and Japan. The USA devotes just 0.17% of its income to foreign aid. In 2015 India received £150m from the UK’s overseas aid budget whilst running a space programme and having a £1.6bn overseas aid budget of its own.
The notion that Foreign Aid somehow benefits the UK is a bit flakey. People donate to charity (which effectively FA is) after they have taken care of their own and when they can afford it. The UK is currently not taking care of its own (this government stands accused of implementing severe austerity which has left people dying in the gutters) and it cannot afford it. The fact that it is enshrined in law how much the UK must give to foreigners regardless of its own financial situation is preposterous but it is said to be one of Mr Cameron’s proudest achievements. If that’s what he's most proud of we should all be thankful that he’s gone.
Foreign aid is no bad thing provided it is at an affordable level, and it is properly used to alleviate or solve the issues it was intended to. Plus it should be appreciate by those masses who benefit.
We are all human beings, even if some don't always seem to be, and I think should accept a moral responsibility for other fellow humans. We would hope someone would help us in times of need and so it is only right we do what we reasonably can in the other direction. But it should not just continue a problem, it has to fix something.
There is, of course, dispute as to how much is affordable. Comparison with other countries may be a guide but we are all different and can afford different amounts. As for our present situation, for sure the economy is not booming but I don't believe that it is so bad that we can not afford to try to help. I simply do not know what percentage of GDP is appropriate.
I think a more critical issue is not the economy we have, which should be enough to ensure no one has to die in gutters, and which we expect to improve once the period of uncertainty ends, but with coping with the excess demands we have due to a rapidly increasing population, when we are already at or past any reasonable max density. Plus, and related, the number of folk unemployed and on welfare (whilst we continue to suck in external labour for what jobs there are).
We need a bit of control and decent management (both at home and in allocating charity) and it may not be the drain it might seem at times.
We are all human beings, even if some don't always seem to be, and I think should accept a moral responsibility for other fellow humans. We would hope someone would help us in times of need and so it is only right we do what we reasonably can in the other direction. But it should not just continue a problem, it has to fix something.
There is, of course, dispute as to how much is affordable. Comparison with other countries may be a guide but we are all different and can afford different amounts. As for our present situation, for sure the economy is not booming but I don't believe that it is so bad that we can not afford to try to help. I simply do not know what percentage of GDP is appropriate.
I think a more critical issue is not the economy we have, which should be enough to ensure no one has to die in gutters, and which we expect to improve once the period of uncertainty ends, but with coping with the excess demands we have due to a rapidly increasing population, when we are already at or past any reasonable max density. Plus, and related, the number of folk unemployed and on welfare (whilst we continue to suck in external labour for what jobs there are).
We need a bit of control and decent management (both at home and in allocating charity) and it may not be the drain it might seem at times.
"I simply do not know what percentage of GDP is appropriate. "
Let me help with that, OG:
The country has a GDP of around £1,600bn. The government takes about half of this and has an income of about £800bn pa. It is borrowing around £80bn just to meet current expenditure. It is giving away around £13bn in Foreign Aid. It owes around £1,600bn
To make that more manageable to grasp, imagine you had an income of £500 per week and you needed to borrow about £50 per week over and above that just to get by. Then imagine that your accumulated debts as a result of this borrowing was around £1,000 (which was rising by £50 a week). How much would you give away to strangers who stick their hand under your nose for the "price of a cup of tea, guv'nor"? I think your answer may be somewhere close to zero. But if you were the government you'd give away around £5.60.
Let me help with that, OG:
The country has a GDP of around £1,600bn. The government takes about half of this and has an income of about £800bn pa. It is borrowing around £80bn just to meet current expenditure. It is giving away around £13bn in Foreign Aid. It owes around £1,600bn
To make that more manageable to grasp, imagine you had an income of £500 per week and you needed to borrow about £50 per week over and above that just to get by. Then imagine that your accumulated debts as a result of this borrowing was around £1,000 (which was rising by £50 a week). How much would you give away to strangers who stick their hand under your nose for the "price of a cup of tea, guv'nor"? I think your answer may be somewhere close to zero. But if you were the government you'd give away around £5.60.
Latest Posts
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music10 mins ago
Death Of Three Young Ladies Backpacking...
News18 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News38 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.