The Student Room Group

[PETITION] Stop Spending So Much on Foreign Aid

Scroll to see replies

Original post by NickLCFC
And that's £12,000,000,000 that could be used to benefit the people of our own country whilst the government continues to make cuts to our own public services.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2016-george-osborne-cuts-11bn-from-nhs-repairs-fund-a6942301.html


So how about protesting against cuts to our public services (or protesting against the vast sums of money, substantially more than £12bn, being lost through tax evasion by the ultra-wealthy, or money going towards ludicrous 'defence' projects) rather than protesting against money going towards people in desperate need of aid?
Not if they havent been starved or killed before we bother to help.
Original post by plagioclase
so how about protesting against cuts to our public services (or protesting against the vast sums of money, substantially more than £12bn, being lost through tax evasion by the ultra-wealthy, or money going towards ludicrous 'defence' projects) rather than protesting against money going towards people in desperate need of aid?


thank you.
Original post by iEthan
Imagine a slice of cake with 0.7% of it missing… that's a LOT of cake still available to share. If 0.7% of our GDP was a problem, we'd know about it by now. I really think this is a non-issue and the fact this petition exists is pretty shameful. It's always someone else's fault… and there's always something to blame… foreign aid, however, is most certainly not why the cuts have been put forward and even if the gov't did reduce its spending, I'm sorry, but it wouldn't make any difference to the cuts. Remember… it's ZERO point seven percent.


You don't have to be so patronising, we all know how much 0.7% is mate. I'm simply saying it is too high and could be reduced to have some it allocated to other issues within our own county. For example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32812601

"Almost a third of the UK population fell below the official poverty line at some point between 2010 and 2013, figures show."
Reply 24
If people wish to donate some of their hard earned money abroad then they are free to do so. I don't believe the government should be dictating that I have to donate it.
Reply 25
Original post by Plagioclase
So how about protesting against cuts to our public services (or protesting against the vast sums of money, substantially more than £12bn, being lost through tax evasion by the ultra-wealthy, or money going towards ludicrous 'defence' projects) rather than protesting against money going towards people in desperate need of aid?


Ah that old counter-argument which doesn't actually make any real point :rolleyes:

How do you know they're not also protesting against all of those? Why does it need to be either that or this, why not both?
Do you actually know the figures? As in, how much blood our country and the U.S. (and various others that have taken part) have on their hands due to the War on terror? Because I'll tell you something for nothing, it's a whole lot higher than what you're citing. Four MILLIONdeaths estimated to have been caused. 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan to name but a few, and they're just 'conservative figures'. Yet, "Britain has done nothing wrong."

Source: PSR: http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the “War on Terror” Iraq Afghanistan Pakistan First international edition - Washington DC, Berlin, Ottawa - March 2015
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Reue
Ah that old counter-argument which doesn't actually make any real point :rolleyes:

How do you know they're not also protesting against all of those? Why does it need to be either that or this, why not both?


I don't know they're not protesting against all of those (although I can make a guess, given the kind of stuff they're saying). The point is that I think it's absurd to protest against a very small proportion of our GDP that genuinely goes towards a good cause when there are so many other sources of money loss that are a lot more malignant.
Reply 28
and spending three times the amount on military doesn´t even raise an eyebrow
Original post by Oliver_94
That money is owed to the many Muslims in the world who have suffered at the hands of the U.K. I argue it should be higher


What about the middle east basically ruining lives for Europeans and Africans, did they managed to pay back Spain for what they did? Have they apologize to the several African countries that they took people from?

No, I guess you could also blame Britain for that as well.

Also, don't lower Muslims to such things.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by m1m2
and spending three times the amount on military doesn´t even raise an eyebrow


The spending on the security of our own nation is completely justified. In fact, I think we should allocate more of our GDP towards military spending.
Original post by tengentoppa
That is not a good basis on which to decide who gets what. The British taxpayer's money should be used to promote the interests of Britain and the British people. A government's first duty is to its people, not to some lofty notion of selflessly alleviating the misery of the world.


^^^^
Reply 32
Third world countries don't need foreign aid, they need free trade. If you really want to help them, buy the stuff they make.
Reply 33
Original post by NickLCFC
The spending on the security of our own nation is completely justified. In fact, I think we should allocate more of our GDP towards military spending.


If you can spend money bombing in Syria, and have taken - and continue to take - part in the NATO Quint in the war of terror, which has cost millions of civilian lives, then you can spend money on foreign aid as well. I am not saying that the UK should not use money on their military - NATO requires them to use 2% of their GDP - but if they are willing to leave ruin and death in foreign countries, they should also be willing to make sure that they pay their share in rebuilding it. If 2,2% is too little in military budgets, 0,7% should also be too small an amount in foreign aid.
Original post by m1m2
and spending three times the amount on military doesn´t even raise an eyebrow


Military spending = Jobs, Science and generally Badassery


Foreign aid = Wells, Cows and Nelson Mandela
You have to ask yourself would most of these countries demanding our foreign aid have been better if they stayed under British rule? There was good respectable public sector jobs and infrastructure there I mean look at the state of the majority of India which apart from the cities is terrible. The British would have ensured that there was some semblance of order in that society
Reply 36
Original post by m1m2
If you can spend money bombing in Syria, and have taken - and continue to take - part in the NATO Quint in the war of terror, which has cost millions of civilian lives, then you can spend money on foreign aid as well. I am not saying that the UK should not use money on their military - NATO requires them to use 2% of their GDP - but if they are willing to leave ruin and death in foreign countries, they should also be willing to make sure that they pay their share in rebuilding it. If 2,2% is too little in military budgets, 0,7% should also be too small an amount in foreign aid.


The 2% in military spending is practically foreign aid. We don't need to spend our money saving the Middle East from Islamist extremism, but we are.
Original post by iEthan
Do you actually know the figures? As in, how much blood our country and the U.S. (and various others that have taken part) have on their hands due to the War on terror? Because I'll tell you something for nothing, it's a whole lot higher than what you're citing. Four MILLIONdeaths estimated to have been caused. 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan to name but a few, and they're just 'conservative figures'. Yet, "Britain has done nothing wrong."

Source: PSR: http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the “War on Terror” Iraq Afghanistan Pakistan First international edition - Washington DC, Berlin, Ottawa - March 2015


I think you will find those deaths have been caused by Islamic insurgents and not the US or the UK, NICE TRY !!!
Reply 38
Original post by djh2208
The 2% in military spending is practically foreign aid. We don't need to spend our money saving the Middle East from Islamist extremism, but we are.


"Saving the Middle East from Islamist extremism". I would not use these terms about invading Afghanistan, spending 11 years there, for so to leave it in ruins, with Taliban having a bigger influence than ever. Invading Iraq, creating a complete chaos, in which Daesh (IS, ISIS, whatever you prefer) grew. Not acknowledging Palestine as a state. Intervening in Libya, leaving the country as unstable as it has ever been, open to extremism.
Killing millions of civilians, and leaving even more of them in despair, is not saving anyone. The war on terror and the English contribution to it has been a complete disaster, and you should not pride yourself in it.
Original post by m1m2
"Saving the Middle East from Islamist extremism". I would not use these terms about invading Afghanistan, spending 11 years there, for so to leave it in ruins, with Taliban having a bigger influence than ever. Invading Iraq, creating a complete chaos, in which Daesh (IS, ISIS, whatever you prefer) grew. Not acknowledging Palestine as a state. Intervening in Libya, leaving the country as unstable as it has ever been, open to extremism.
Killing millions of civilians, and leaving even more of them in despair, is not saving anyone. The war on terror and the English contribution to it has been a complete disaster, and you should not pride yourself in it.


Anybody who even thinks of apologising for the Taliban is utter human trash and should be banned from the debate, preferably banned from the internet also.

Quick Reply

Latest