Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

  • View Poll Results: Are UKIP right to cut foreign aid?
    Yes
    46
    50.55%
    No
    45
    49.45%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...erseas-Aid-Cut

    UKIP have pledged to cut foreign aid by 90% down to £1.3 billion a year. This will save £45 billion over the Parliamentary term and the saved money will go to paying the deficit down.

    What do you think?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    They could probably cut defence spending to 99% and save the same amount. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I support this, not because development aid is an unaffordable luxury, but because it is evil. The third world is poor primarily because it is badly governed. Development aid only strengthens those bad governments. Disaster relief is something else, but this isn't mostly short term bridging support, it's structural support for structures that simply need to be destroyed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...erseas-Aid-Cut

    UKIP have pledged to cut foreign aid by 90% down to £1.3 billion a year. This will save £45 billion over the Parliamentary term and the saved money will go to paying the deficit down.

    What do you think?
    As a previous UKIP voter I look forward to seeing the manifesto
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Damask-)
    They could probably cut defence spending to 99% and save the same amount. :rolleyes:
    You mean 25%
    But then again, as a NATO member we should be spening at least 2% GDP on defence which we barely are
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I support this, not because development aid is an unaffordable luxury, but because it is evil. The third world is poor primarily because it is badly governed. Development aid only strengthens those bad governments. Disaster relief is something else, but this isn't mostly short term bridging support, it's structural support for structures that simply need to be destroyed.
    And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place :rolleyes:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ornlu)
    And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place :rolleyes:
    They were centuries behind when we came, we brought them forward.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ornlu)
    And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place :rolleyes:
    Does this mean that if you send a kid with below average intelligence to school, and they come out still with below average intelligence, it's the fault of the school?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ornlu)
    And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place :rolleyes:
    Even if I accept your premise that all the world's problems were caused by King George III, Pitt, and Disraeli, why would it follow that we should try to fix those problems by adopting policies that make them worse?

    Is your interest to improve the state of third world countries, or to punish British people, almost none of whom today actively participated in creating or administering the British Empire?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Charity should start at home and only when you are not in a massive debt can you begin to help others. What use is it to help others when you can not even look after yourself,
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Does this mean that if you send a kid with below average intelligence to school, and they come out still with below average intelligence, it's the fault of the school?
    According to the league table system, yes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Observatory)
    According to the league table system, yes.
    People who determine how good a school is purely based on their league table positioning, I would say, is an idiot, and that is half the reason why private schools are seen as superior. It's trivially true that a more capable intake will lead to better results.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spanker)
    Charity should start at home and only when you are not in a massive debt can you begin to help others. What use is it to help others when you can not even look after yourself,
    Because people in the UK being able to afford better luxuries is more important than helping people in Syria or the third world who have nothing...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    People who determine how good a school is purely based on their league table positioning, I would say, is an idiot, and that is half the reason why private schools are seen as superior. It's trivially true that a more capable intake will lead to better results.
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but many of those idiots run or ran our country.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Better to sort ourselves out first rather than worrying about propping up other countries.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Solivagant)
    Because people in the UK being able to afford better luxuries is more important than helping people in Syria or the third world who have nothing...
    And because there are people in the third world who have nothing means it's okay to ignore those in this country who, in relative terms, have nothing?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    They were centuries behind when we came, we brought them forward.
    Advances in technology =/= improvement. People were fine with their respective established orders and societies, they didn't need Western countries to 'civilise' them - sounds like the typical colonial hogwash - 'let's educate the savages'...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Go to 2:10



    Not that anyone actually cares.

    If allowed poor countries can do a lot to fix themselves. Take Uruguay.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay

    "The Economist named Uruguay "country of the year" in 2013[10] acknowledging the innovative policy of legalizing production, sale and consumption of cannabis. Same-sex marriage and abortion are also legal, leading Uruguay to be regarded as one of the most liberal nations in the world, and one of the most socially developed, outstanding regionally[11] and excelling globally on personal rights, tolerance and inclusion issues."

    This is becoming more common is South American countries. With the fall of the cold war and the breaking free of American backed tyrannies/economic oppression there are quiet a lot of reformist 'soft left' experiments going on in these places that are actually working in making people's lives a lot better.

    A lot of people on here are taking the stance of we shouldn't be giving money to corrupt regimes. Well there are democratic countries that would welcome some support. The above statement is also not honest. There are many cases where the West (especially america) have stopped the sort of progressive governments such as that now seen in Uruguay from ever developing by backing and handing money to tyrannical police states that oppress their respective populations.

    The presedent of Uruguay is actually quite interesting if anyone is bothered

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ay-jose-mujica
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Stop aid, no. Never. I do however believe that how it is being spent ought to be reviewed, as giving it directly to a government, rather than a charity who is actually doing the work, is more likely to lead to corruption.

    Having been to places where help is needed, just giving money to a government of a poor country isn't always the best thing to do. Aid to countries such as China is now pretty much pointless as they are a growing economic power who should be able to improve things on their own.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solivagant)
    Because people in the UK being able to afford better luxuries is more important than helping people in Syria or the third world who have nothing...
    I did not mention having luxuries anywhere. My point is it would you personally give money away that you never had in the first place? Say you earn 5 pounds and you give away 7 pounds. How is that going to help you?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 26, 2014
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.