B726 - Foreign Aid Bill 2014 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
I'm not sure I see the point

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
Why £7B? What is it at present? Why should future Governments not be able to adapt to the international situation at the time? And surely the budget should start from the next fiscal year rather than calender year? I'm going to say Nay to this one.
0
GoldenEmblem277
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
Nay.
0
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
Nay, absolutely not. We don't spend enough as it is.
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by Faland)
B726 - Foreign Aid Bill 2014, TSR UKIP


Foreign Aid Act 2014

An Act to control and account for the spending of foreign aid.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Section 1 - The Foreign Aid Budget

(1) The foreign aid budget from the 1st January 2015 will be £7bn per annum.
(2) The foreign aid budget will not rise above this level for 5 years.
(i) This level may decrease with further legislation
(3) The foreign aid budget will be reviewed again at the end of those 5 years.

Section 2 - Accounting for Foreign Aid

(1) Foreign Aid allocated to and spent by foreign governments must be accounted for.
(2) The Department for International Development will be responsible for ensuring that foreign governments have used UK aid money for the purpose that it was intended.
(3) Countries that fail to account for how UK aid is spent shall not receive any further aid from the UK.
(4) Countries that are found to have used UK aid money for the purposes of corruption shall not receive any further aid from the UK.

Section 3 - Commencement and Short Title


(1) This Act my be cited as the Foreign Aid Act 2014.
(2) This Act shall come into force on the 1st January 2015
In principle I agree, there are far too many who go without in our own country for us to be spending more than several billion on the plight of those in other countries, and I don't think we currently do enough to ensure our money is spent constructively.

However, since current spending IRL (I presume TSR will not be too different) is c.£730bn, I think £7bn is too miserly a sum for significantly poorer countries.

Section 2 3) and 4) are too simplistic as they do not allow for the possibility of changes in government in countries that previously did not account for/misused aid money.

Section 1 2) i) is totally superfluous since further legislation can increase it also, as well as do pretty much anything else.

How exactly we would go about accounting for aid money in practice is something else. £7bn is a large sum of money, and properly accounting for all of it would be expensive in itself, but I really don't see how you're ever going to be able to know for certain what some of these countries have spent all of the money on. It must be incresibly easy for them to cover their tracks if they are misusing some of it.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by Birkenhead)
However, since current spending IRL (I presume TSR will not be too different) is c.£730bn, I think £7bn is too miserly a sum for significantly poorer countries.
The current budget for this aid is £12bn, not £730bn which would be about 40% of GDP. This bill only calls for a cut of £5bn which we would like to see used in improving our A&E departments.
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
The current budget is just over £7bn, not £730bn which would be about 40% of GDP. This bill only calls for a cut of £5bn which we would like to see used in improving our A&E departments.
I was referring to UK government total spending.

:facepalm2:
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by Birkenhead)
I was referring to UK government total spending.:facepalm2:
I completely misread your post then:albertein:. I would ask you, if the £7bn is too measly what figure would you consider to be appropriate?
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
Fair enough, that is near £730bn but I would ask you, if the £7bn is too measly what figure would you consider to be appropriate?
I think the government's current spending of 11bn is good but the countries it is paid to should be revised.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by Birkenhead)
The current IRL government's figure of £11bn seems appropriate to me.
So you don't "agree, there are far too many who go without in our own country for us to be spending more than several billion on the plight of those in other countries." If you did, a figure of £3bn would be fine for you.
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
So you don't "agree, there are far too many who go without in our own country for us to be spending more than several billion on the plight of those in other countries." If you did, a figure of £3bn would be fine for you.
11bn is not more than several billion. I think the current spending is good, but countries like India should not be receiving it while they pay for projects like nuclear and space capability.
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
The current budget for this aid is £12bn, not £730bn which would be about 40% of GDP. This bill only calls for a cut of £5bn which we would like to see used in improving our A&E departments.
For a start, you have absolutely no idea what so ever how it would be used, so please don't pretend - this Bill doesn't stipulate it, and it would be down to the Government to decide rather than UKIP. And my other question is, how do you suggest it is properly accounted for? India, for example, could very easily spend British aid on welfare, but then spend money from taxation that may otherwise have been allocated to welfare on its space programme. My impression is that this Bill will most likely reduce funding to places where its most needed if they don't have stable governments who account for it professionally, while those which actually have a slightly better chance of fending for themselves will go on much as before.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
(Original post by nebelbon)
Your bill was only successful because the 'left' have a majority.

Don't be so smug.
It was hardly a polarising left-right bill. I would have said wanting an official national anthem was more of a rightist thing anyway.
0
Blue Meltwater
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
Nay. This would reduce foreign aid to 0.4% of GDP, well below the UN target of 0.7%.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 years ago
#35
So it appears the government doesn't want to save billions of pounds every year to spend on projects close to home. This money could be given to the NHS, the poor at home and improve the lives of the impoverished in this country.

It is a shame the Government does not have the interests of the British people at heart.

Wait, i almost forgot - they did change the national anthem!!! So we must be grateful for that...
Blue Meltwater
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
(Original post by nebelbon)
So it appears the government doesn't want to save billions of pounds every year to spend on projects close to home. This money could be given to the NHS, the poor at home and improve the lives of the impoverished in this country.

It is a shame the Government does not have the interests of the British people at heart.

Wait, i almost forgot - they did change the national anthem!!! So we must be grateful for that...
It's because we're an internationalist, not a nationalist, government. We're a left-wing government - of course we support public spending at home! But we're also in favour of helping other countries less fortunate than our own.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by nebelbon)
So it appears the government doesn't want to save billions of pounds every year to spend on projects close to home. This money could be given to the NHS, the poor at home and improve the lives of the impoverished in this country.

It is a shame the Government does not have the interests of the British people at heart.

Wait, i almost forgot - they did change the national anthem!!! So we must be grateful for that...
Many of the impoverished here would be considered well off in many of the destination countries for international aid.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
(Original post by Blue Meltwater)
It's because we're an internationalist, not a nationalist, government. We're a left-wing government - of course we support public spending at home! But we're also in favour of helping other countries less fortunate than our own.
At the cost of our poor and elderly. The left are shunning the most needy in the country by denying them this massive saving of billions of pounds every year.

It is a shame the champagne socialist government cannot see the pain and toil the working class in Britain go through; all the government care about is their image to everyone else: 'Hey, look at us, we help other countries before our own'.
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
(Original post by O133)
Many of the impoverished here would be considered well off in many of the destination countries for international aid.
So its fine that the elderly die over here because they cannot afford heating or find a space in an NHS hospital?

That makes it all ok because other people are poorer?

Great logic. So i can't say that certain things make me sad because there will always be someone who is sadder than i am?
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 years ago
#40
(Original post by nebelbon)
So it appears the government doesn't want to save billions of pounds every year to spend on projects close to home. This money could be given to the NHS, the poor at home and improve the lives of the impoverished in this country.

It is a shame the Government does not have the interests of the British people at heart.

Wait, i almost forgot - they did change the national anthem!!! So we must be grateful for that...
The British Republic is the 6th richest country in the entire world. It's my belief that we don't have to absolve ourselves of our international responsibilities in order to provide for our citizens. There's a lot of reasons people are suffering in this country - foreign aid spending really isn't one of them.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (273)
38.18%
No - but I will (51)
7.13%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.13%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (340)
47.55%

Watched Threads

View All