Should we have to spend 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid?

Then you don't know nothing about the military. So an occasional carpet bomb isn't heavy bombing? A 2000lb bomb isn't heavy bombing? Heavy bombing doesn't necessarily mean the amount.

Exactly, so heavy bombing by NATO forces of which the UK took part lol, directed under British commanders.. Oh really? http://m.naharnet.com/stories/en/131244-bosnia-floods-raise-danger-of-wartime-explosives In Serbia, most of the areas still infected with unexploded mines and bombs from 1999 NATO bombing campaign.

There was no carpet bombing of anywhere in the former Yugoslavia.
The term 'heavy bombing' refers to the intensity of the raid, not the weight of a particular munition.
The article that you quote refers mostly to land mines, which I also mentioned. The 1999 Nato bombing campaign was against Serbia in response to its actions in Kosovo. I was writing about a different conflict in a different country.

I didn't say that. It was an example.

It can be used to describe both.

Yes, but NATO bombs too. I think I messed up the link I had.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/italy052199.htm

It seems rather bizarre to me that our government is obsessed with meeting a spending target (which will change/increase depending on the economy) rather than assessing the desired outcomes and budgeting accordingly.


Don't get me wrong, I fully support ending poverty, providing disaster relief, improving health abroad but the arbritary target (which no other western country complies with) is often fuelling corruption and putting local people out of work.

For example on the east coast of Africa, paying nations so Europeans fish in their waters, while local people can't. Or giving handouts of food so local farmers are uncompetitive so stop producing.

Also charities may be a more sensible way than borrowing money we will have to pay back to go on often wasteful spending sprees.


If you agree, there's an official petition here, any UK national can quickly sign and at 100,000 signatures parliament will have to debate:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200292

We've done that. We continue to do that. Where's your point if money will continue to go to vaccinations? Noone is saying stop vaccinations? You're making yourself look silly now.

I am, it’s a horrible thing to do but there are way too many people in the world anyway.

Population is now 250% higher than 100 years ago and 700% higher than 200 years ago.

They were poorer before the empire

We are in so much debt we will probably never be able to pay it off.

If homeless people in the uk must go to charities, why can't other countries do the same?

India had an ancient education system and we destroyed it, debt CREATES new money, if we have NO debt then wealth creation would grind to a halt, rich countries such as Britain GROW on debt, if debt grows we grow in wealth, if debt £ value drops, wealth creation slows or decline what needs to happen is lower the % to GDP.

Other countries do not have this opportunity, hence why UK gives aid.

We should not send anything abroad while there are still people legitimately homeless and hungry in this country.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that if the government suddenly stopped its foreign aid contributions they could or would turn it instead to the homeless et al. here. This comes across as not but a whimsical dream. Especially given the ministers keep waffling on about the homeless being the scourge of society and a bunch of crack addled misfits.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that if the government suddenly stopped its foreign aid contributions they could or would turn it instead to the homeless et al. here. This comes across as not but a whimsical dream. Especially given the ministers keep waffling on about the homeless being the scourge of society and a bunch of crack addled misfits.

India had an ancient education system and we destroyed it, debt CREATES new money, if we have NO debt then wealth creation would grind to a halt, rich countries such as Britain GROW on debt, if debt grows we grow in wealth, if debt £ value drops, wealth creation slows or decline what needs to happen is lower the % to GDP.

Other countries do not have this opportunity, hence why UK gives aid.

Not really that ancient, and not very useful, much less useful than the education the British introduced.

Would you care to explain how massive debt is beneficial?

He’s on about fiat currency where money backed by nothing is created when banks issue loans.

He’s wrong about that’s how wealth creation happens though as we created wealth before fiat currency existed in the old form of the pound Stirling and the gold standard.

Likewise, the current government isn't going to actually reduce foreign aid. So by your logic we shouldn't discuss any ideas which would improve the country, only what will likely happen.

Of course they could.

Would they? Who knows? At least there would be a smaller deficit

Pray tell how reducing foreign aid would 'improve the country' - what a farcical notion.

That wasn't the point I was making, but since you ask, when our 'aid' arms terrorists, feeds corruption, puts poor people out of work it negatively impacts us and the world.

If we cut wasteful spending it means we can either spend more on priorities or have a lower debt, which needs to be paid off by taxpayers now and in the future.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that if the government suddenly stopped its foreign aid contributions they could or would turn it instead to the homeless et al. here. This comes across as not but a whimsical dream. Especially given the ministers keep waffling on about the homeless being the scourge of society and a bunch of crack addled misfits.