UKIP pledge to cut foreign aid by 90% to save £45 billion &amp; will pay down deficit

Original post by Maid Marian

Excellent! Great news, really hope UKIP get in. Britain comes first.

I agree maz "lets send dem pakis 'ome!!!!!!!!!!"

Reply 61

Original post by darkred

I agree maz "lets send dem pakis 'ome!!!!!!!!!!"

It's not about sending anyone home. :erm:

Reply 62

Original post by Solivagant

Do you actually understand politics or economics or are you purely voting just based on blind patriotism and stupidity?

Do you think it's possible for you to learn to be tolerant of other people's beliefs, or are you just stupid?

Reply 63

Solivagant

18

Original post by Maid Marian

Do you think it's possible for you to learn to be tolerant of other people's beliefs, or are you just stupid?

I am tolerant. But being tolerant doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

Reply 64

Original post by Solivagant

I am tolerant. But being tolerant doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

Right.

Nobody said anything about agreeing, but being tolerant means you don't insult someone because of their views.

Reply 65

Solivagant

18

Original post by Maid Marian

Right.

Nobody said anything about agreeing, but being tolerant means you don't insult someone because of their views.

If you'd actually had any sense in what you were saying, or come up with a decent argument, then yes. But what you said made it sound like you had no idea about anything. I'm sorry for insulting you anyway :sad:

Reply 66

Original post by Solivagant

If you'd actually had any sense in what you were saying, or come up with a decent argument, then yes. But what you said made it sound like you had no idea about anything. I'm sorry for insulting you anyway :sad:

I have a vision of a Britain that I would like, and out of all that I've heard from the parties, UKIP is the one that seems closest to achieving a tiny bit as to what I'd like. I have no interest in presenting an argument. :dontknow:

Apology accepted.

Reply 67

Yes, we should give them aid. A lot of developing counties took out loans from rich counties like the uk and will have to pay the money yo us with interest , so we kinda get that money back we gave them to start off with

Reply 68

Friar Chris

19

Original post by Damask-

They could probably cut defence spending to 99% and save the same amount. :rolleyes:

Defence spending:

- Helps our economy? Yes.
- Provides us with useful military capabilities? Yes.
- Ensures our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? Yes.
- Matches our treaty commitment to defence spending as required to be a part of NATO? Yes
- Allows us to directly intervene in humanitarian crises with boots on the ground, supplies from the air and ship-based hospitals? Yes.

Foreign Aid:

- Helps our economy? No.
- Helps our diplomatic standing? Variable. We give millions to countries whose own spending priorities are far more militant than our own despite appalling poverty in their country.
- Is required by any treaty or law? No.
- Lets us feel all high and mighty and so benevolent? Yes.

Most of our foreign aid is an ego-trip; the majority doesn't go into crises or actually into making life better in the third world. That's fine when we have money knocking about and no huge debt of our own; but that isn't the case. Currently, it's not worth the extra strain on the treasury.

Reply 69

Original post by Larissa14

Yes, we should give them aid. A lot of developing counties took out loans from rich counties like the uk and will have to pay the money yo us with interest , so we kinda get that money back we gave them to start off with

That's very bad accounting.
And actually it's interesting to look where the moeny goes (global, not just ours) and you see that most of it goes to allies, trade partners and former colonies rather than the places that really need it.

Reply 70

Original post by Jammy Duel

That's very bad accounting.
And actually it's interesting to look where the moeny goes (global, not just ours) and you see that most of it goes to allies, trade partners and former colonies rather than the places that really need it.

I would say more of a lack of education in those countries, but I kinda agree and your last sentence. I rather give all that money to the hungry people than give our money to country's that spend it on defence and weapons. Makes me sad and angry tbh but I suppose if the country was rightly governed then the country would be rich?

Reply 71

Original post by Larissa14

I would say more of a lack of education in those countries, but I kinda agree and your last sentence. I rather give all that money to the hungry people than give our money to country's that spend it on defence and weapons. Makes me sad and angry tbh but I suppose if the country was rightly governed then the country would be rich?

It's also interesting to observe that India received in 2012 $1.6bn, and in 2013-14they gave out 1.2bn.
Why the **** are we giving foreign aid to a country then they gives 75% of it out themselves?
Ukraine received $800m, why?
Breakdown of the UK here: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-to-end-aid-package-to-india--which-nations-receive-most-cash-from-britain-09112012.html#q8RrcQl

Reply 72

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Maid Marian

Excellent! Great news, really hope UKIP get in. Britain comes first.

Except when it comes to handing over power to multinationals.

The EU is an undemocratic mess sure, (which is why UKIP do get support) but UKIP do not appose the current "trade deal" being made between the US and the EU. This trade deal is a perfect example of an attack on the UK's ability it govern itself. So why are UKIP not shouting and waving there arms about it? This is a perfect example of why the EU is undemocratic and we should either be reforming it or outright breaking away from it. So why is UKIP so silent? Because it actually aligns with their political and economic position of rampant "neoliberalism" (which isn't new or liberal) But most UKIP voters don't even know about it. A party that does actually talk about the "trade deal" is Green but they get given no air time whatsoever (even though they actually have an MP)

This is what I am talking about if anyone is interested.
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/ttip-eu-citizens-initiative-democracy.html

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 73

Original post by Jammy Duel

It's also interesting to observe that India received in 2012 $1.6bn, and in 2013-14they gave out 1.2bn.
Why the **** are we giving foreign aid to a country then they gives 75% of it out themselves?
Ukraine received $800m, why?
Breakdown of the UK here: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-to-end-aid-package-to-india--which-nations-receive-most-cash-from-britain-09112012.html#q8RrcQl

I read this article and it kind of changed my view on how much we spend on foreign aid. We should only spend it on country's that really need help. Why do we give so much to India though ? Even though quite of the country is poor , Mumbai has like the 8th most city with the most millionaire or something. Haha. But it's sad to see really poor and really rich people in a city even though it happens here it britian too. And India also makes a lot of money in Bollywood to so I'm kinda glad we are stopping aid in that country

Reply 74

Original post by Larissa14

I read this article and it kind of changed my view on how much we spend on foreign aid. We should only spend it on country's that really need help. Why do we give so much to India though ? Even though quite of the country is poor , Mumbai has like the 8th most city with the most millionaire or something. Haha. But it's sad to see really poor and really rich people in a city even though it happens here it britian too. And India also makes a lot of money in Bollywood to so I'm kinda glad we are stopping aid in that country

I think it's also interesting to note that quite a lot of the time aid either has minimal impact, about 0.1% of the GDP at best, or you are potentially leading to problems of dependence, where the aid they recieve is a huge percentage of their GDP (such as in Gaza where more than half their GDP comes from humanitarian aid.
I also wonder, of the $7bn that goes to Afghanistan annually, how much do the people see and how much goes into trying in vain to get stability (and Afghanistan's GDP is either 37 or 22 bn, PPP and nominal respectively)

Reply 75

Original post by Jammy Duel

I think it's also interesting to note that quite a lot of the time aid either has minimal impact, about 0.1% of the GDP at best, or you are potentially leading to problems of dependence, where the aid they recieve is a huge percentage of their GDP (such as in Gaza where more than half their GDP comes from humanitarian aid.
I also wonder, of the $7bn that goes to Afghanistan annually, how much do the people see and how much goes into trying in vain to get stability (and Afghanistan's GDP is either 37 or 22 bn, PPP and nominal respectively)

Yeah when I think about it, if you divide the 45 billion that we send to other others that not a huge amount of money to make a difference to the government. Yeah, I don't agree how all the money just goes to the government and not to the people in need but I don't know how they could solve that :frown:

Reply 76

Original post by Larissa14

Yeah when I think about it, if you divide the 45 billion that we send to other others that not a huge amount of money to make a difference to the government. Yeah, I don't agree how all the money just goes to the government and not to the people in need but I don't know how they could solve that :frown:

Well that's 45 over 5 years and probably accoutning for inflation, we send in the region of 9bn per year but if we really wanted to help that would be going to UN organisations, not governments. Instead it's just a diplomatic tool to get what we want so it really comes down to determining how much we get out of it from the assorted agreements. I also find it interesting how we give aid to Argentina...you can hardly say were are on good terms.

Reply 77

Quady

Original post by Jammy Duel

Well that's 45 over 5 years and probably accoutning for inflation, we send in the region of 9bn per year but if we really wanted to help that would be going to UN organisations, not governments. Instead it's just a diplomatic tool to get what we want so it really comes down to determining how much we get out of it from the assorted agreements. I also find it interesting how we give aid to Argentina...you can hardly say were are on good terms.

So it doesn't go to UN organisations?

Reply 78