Turn on thread page Beta

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

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

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    They were centuries behind when we came, we brought them forward.
    Yes by exploiting the people and their resources, for your own benefits. So kind of you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Being launched this weekend.

    The Green Party one is unreadable for the majority of the population. Its been written be committee, and has very bizzare sentence structures going on.
    At least it's a proper manifesto. Manifestos are about policies. UKIP's "manifesto" can not really be considered as such.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Observatory)
    My argument had nothing to do with the magnitude, but rather the nature of the payments. I'm sorry I was so unclear, or else made the post so short it could be skimmed over entirely, but the point is that debt repayment is payment for a service that has already been provided. It is not money that is being taken in exchange for nothing. For its $330bn of repayment obligations Brazil has received hundreds of billions of dollars of cash which it has spent.


    edit: While it's not important to the argument I am making, please note that you are comparing the amount of aid Brazil receives in one year to the total debt obligation it will repay over several decades.


    ^


    Completely incorrect. The debt has been repaid and now it's just the interest being paid off on the loans taken to repay the initial debt. It would be as if someone took out a wonga loan for £50, then another wonga loan for £60 to repay the first one, then a £70.. they only spent £50 twenty years ago but suddenly they're repaying a £5000 loan - substantially less than inflation.

    Wikipedia :awesome:

    But anyway, let's not sidetrack from the UKIP thread. My issues raised with cutting financial aid to foreign countries are still valid regardless of where this goes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's funny - a lot of people who say things like: "Stop foreign aid, we have homeless people in the UK" or "Stop foreign aid - charity starts at home" are the same people who would kick up a stink if the foreign aid budget was redirected to helping poor or homeless people in the UK.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    It's funny - a lot of people who say things like: "Stop foreign aid, we have homeless people in the UK" or "Stop foreign aid - charity starts at home" are the same people who would kick up a stink if the foreign aid budget was redirected to helping poor or homeless people in the UK.
    Yep. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP are only able to exist in the size and shape they are because they accept foreign aid (by their views), by having salaries and benefits from the EU, instead of being principled and not taking their seats in the European Parliament.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    ^


    Completely incorrect. The debt has been repaid and now it's just the interest being paid off on the loans taken to repay the initial debt.
    That's not true. Brazil has been running a budget deficit (i.e. accruing new debt) every year since 1997. It hasn't returned a surplus since 1991. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...H.GD.ZS?page=4

    It would be as if someone took out a wonga loan for £50, then another wonga loan for £60 to repay the first one, then a £70.. they only spent £50 twenty years ago but suddenly they're repaying a £5000 loan - substantially less than inflation.

    Wikipedia :awesome:
    However, regardless whether Brazil acted prudently borrowing money on the terms it did, the payments they are making are those they agreed to when they took out the loan. If Brazil had decided to, for instance, import cars at 10x the face value, it would not mean that the car manufacturers are somehow extracting money for nothing.

    Now, I quite believe that the Brazilian government acted imprudently, and that it continues to do so. I do not think it is a good idea to encourage this imprudence with subsidises. A country that - in your estimation - would exchange £5,000 of future money for £50 today implicitly will only derive $10m of value from $1bn of aid, due to its incompetent financial management - a waste!

    But anyway, let's not sidetrack from the UKIP thread. My issues raised with cutting financial aid to foreign countries are still valid regardless of where this goes.
    The issue you raised was that we aren't really giving countries any aid because we should subtract debt payments to calculate the amount of aid we are giving. That debt payments and aid are unrelated destroys that argument.

    [Another objection that could be raised in response to this is that you haven't limited it to loans issued by the British government - but it's not the key point!]
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    It's funny - a lot of people who say things like: "Stop foreign aid, we have homeless people in the UK" or "Stop foreign aid - charity starts at home" are the same people who would kick up a stink if the foreign aid budget was redirected to helping poor or homeless people in the UK.
    If that used to be true, it isn't so much any more. Labour lost about 10% of their support in Wales to UKIP in the past few months. National preference has long been popular on the left; it's not like the welfare state isn't overwhelmingly skewed toward national preference as things are.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    It's funny - a lot of people who say things like: "Stop foreign aid, we have homeless people in the UK" or "Stop foreign aid - charity starts at home" are the same people who would kick up a stink if the foreign aid budget was redirected to helping poor or homeless people in the UK.
    Personally, I reckon a lot of those people aren't honestly saying it should go to people in the UK instead, more likely that what they really mean is "stop foreign aid so we can have a tax cut"
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Personally, I reckon a lot of those people aren't honestly saying it should go to people in the UK instead, more likely that what they really mean is "stop foreign aid so we can have a tax cut"
    Which is the same as saying it should go to people in the UK, unless they propose tax cuts in other countries.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Which is the same as saying it should go to people in the UK, unless they propose tax cuts in other countries.
    Only on a technicality
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Only on a technicality
    The technicality of the statement being entirely correct in all respects?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The technicality of the statement being entirely correct in all respects?
    Well it's not being given to people in the UK instead of to foreign governments, it's just not being taken in the first place.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Britain has simply nearly collapsed. It cannot pay its way in the world and the hard working nature of the developing world is taking more of the western pie.

    Reducing aid to countries like China, India is laughable when we need closer ties and increased trade not the other way.

    UKIP a far right nationalist joke of a party will just lead to further closed trade ties and reduced and less influential Britain.

    Enjoy it!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It makes me very proud to be British that we have one of the highest foreign aid budgets in the world. Sure a lot of it is wasted, and could certainly be diverted to better causes - but I do not object to the principle of spending as much we do on aid each year.

    And in theory if aid is used properly it can actually save money by reducing the likelihood of failed states and therefore military intervention.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Friar Chris)
    Defence spending:

    - Helps our economy? Yes.
    - Provides us with useful military capabilities? Yes.
    - Ensures our permanent seat on the UN Security Council? Yes.
    - Matches our treaty commitment to defence spending as required to be a part of NATO? Yes
    - Allows us to directly intervene in humanitarian crises with boots on the ground, supplies from the air and ship-based hospitals? Yes.


    Foreign Aid:

    - Helps our economy? No.
    - Helps our diplomatic standing? Variable. We give millions to countries whose own spending priorities are far more militant than our own despite appalling poverty in their country.
    - Is required by any treaty or law? No.
    - Lets us feel all high and mighty and so benevolent? Yes.


    Most of our foreign aid is an ego-trip; the majority doesn't go into crises or actually into making life better in the third world. That's fine when we have money knocking about and no huge debt of our own; but that isn't the case. Currently, it's not worth the extra strain on the treasury.
    BTW there is no point making a comparison between the utility of greater defence or aid spending, as UKIP's proposal is to use the money saved from cutting aid to go towards funding tax cuts, not increased spending on the military.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hewitt)
    BTW there is no point making a comparison between the utility of greater defence or aid spending, as UKIP's proposal is to use the money saved from cutting aid to go towards funding tax cuts, not increased spending on the military.
    Yes there is. The user proposed cutting military spending to achieve the same goal.

    Besides, cutting taxes is a good reason in itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ornlu)
    And it's not because Western colonialism made them poor and underdeveloped in the first place :rolleyes:
    If they weren't poor and underdeveloped they wouldn't have been conquered. Duh childish loony lefty view on colonialism. Even bloody John Stuart Mill agrees.
 
 
 
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
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.