Go to first unread
Back
to top
UKIP pledge to cut foreign aid by 90% to save £45 billion & will pay down deficit
Watch
Announcements
Poll: Are UKIP right to cut foreign aid?
Yes
(46)
50.55%
No
(45)
49.45%
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?
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?
0
reply
Report
#3
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.
5
reply
Report
#4
(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?
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?
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Damask-)
They could probably cut defence spending to 99% and save the same amount.
They could probably cut defence spending to 99% and save the same amount.
But then again, as a NATO member we should be spening at least 2% GDP on defence which we barely are
0
reply
Report
#6
(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.
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.
4
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Ornlu)
And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place
And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place
11
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by Ornlu)
And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place
And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Ornlu)
And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place
And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place
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?
1
reply
Report
#10
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,
5
reply
Report
#11
(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?
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?
1
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by Observatory)
According to the league table system, yes.
According to the league table system, yes.
1
reply
Report
#13
(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,
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,
6
reply
Report
#14
(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.
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.
0
reply
Report
#15
Better to sort ourselves out first rather than worrying about propping up other countries.
2
reply
Report
#16
(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...
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...
1
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by Rakas21)
They were centuries behind when we came, we brought them forward.
They were centuries behind when we came, we brought them forward.
5
reply
Report
#18
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
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
3
reply
Report
#19
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.
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.
0
reply
Report
#20
(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...
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...
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
