Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

S08 - Statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    The statement is a very clear message from my department that the foreign aid obligation will be spent only where it is needed and if it is not, it will not be spent. I would like to point out that I would rather help those in the UK currently suffering a disservice than fritter money away disguised as Foreign Aid, just to meet an obligation I do not necessarily agree with. Your concerns are noted however.
    Any money that if part of the foreign aid budget is to be spent on, guess what: foreign aid. Something this government has now three times failed to comprehend. And members of the government still wonder why they are so bad.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Any money that if part of the foreign aid budget is to be spent on, guess what: foreign aid. Something this government has now three times failed to comprehend. And members of the government still wonder why they are so bad.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    To put it in simple terms, the foreign aid budget is being decreased with the money saved put into the NHS
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    To put it in simple terms, the foreign aid budget is being decreased with the money saved put into the NHS
    There's this person called "the chancellor" and this denaturant called "the treasury", right? Oh yeah, we had a **** budget that did very little of what it claimed to do and then the chancellor resigned. Regardless, wrong department. Then again, I would be surprised if this government could do anything right.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    There's this person called "the chancellor" and this denaturant called "the treasury", right? Oh yeah, we had a **** budget that did very little of what it claimed to do and then the chancellor resigned. Regardless, wrong department. Then again, I would be surprised if this government could do anything right.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You've lost me mate.

    If you're suggesting that the statement should have been made by the Chancellor, maybe you're right. But surely it does not matter, and what matters is the content of the statement.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    You've lost me mate.

    If you're suggesting that the statement should have been made by the Chancellor, maybe you're right. But surely it does not matter, and what matters is the content of the statement.
    Well it sort of does matter because it is not within the remit of any department other than the treasury to allocate funds. The SoS can say as much as they like they are giving money to the ministry of health, but they cannot unless the treasury specifically says so. There are actually looking established laws, if memory serves my right from the seventeenth century, about such things.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Well it sort of does matter because it is not within the remit of any department other than the treasury to allocate funds. The SoS can say as much as they like they are giving money to the ministry of health, but they cannot unless the treasury specifically says so. There are actually looking established laws, if memory serves my right from the seventeenth century, about such things.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's what I did do. Go gripe somewhere else if you're going to be so anal about stuff.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    That's what I did do. Go gripe somewhere else if you're going to be so anal about stuff.
    So why is this statement from your office rather than the treasury other than this government not knowing the basics of British government departmentmental funding?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So why is this statement from your office rather than the treasury other than this government not knowing the basics of British government departmentmental funding?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I can't believe you're actually being this pedantic. MHoC is a debating society. Debate the contents of the statement, rather than who should be making it or not


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    tbf Jammy has a point (although he isn't arguing it well) that there is a legal obligation to spend 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid. As such, this statement is only legally possible if our current foreign aid spending is at least £2.2bil above that 0.7%. It may well be, but I cba to work it out atm. Otherwise, either this statement needs to be accompanied with a bill/motion changing the current obligation on foreign aid spending, or the money has to be diverted elsewhere in the foreign aid budget rather than to the NHS/ILC's (my preference would be to renewable energy projects instead).

    Edit: upon seeing Jammy's subsequent posts since I started writing this, it seems this wasn't what he was saying at all. Oh well, nonetheless it is a valid concern I have raised here.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cBay)
    tbf Jammy has a point (although he isn't arguing it well) that there is a legal obligation to spend 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid. As such, this statement is only legally possible if our current foreign aid spending is at least £2.2bil above that 0.7%. It may well be, but I cba to work it out atm. Otherwise, either this statement needs to be accompanied with a bill/motion changing the current obligation on foreign aid spending, or the money has to be diverted elsewhere in the foreign aid budget rather than to the NHS/ILC's (my preference would be to renewable energy projects instead).

    Edit: upon seeing Jammy's subsequent posts since I started writing this, it seems this wasn't what he was saying at all. Oh well, nonetheless it is a valid concern I have raised here.
    Actually that's where I started and labour last term reduced it to 0.5%, what I am now arguing is a more significant point about the legal allocation of funds, and if people want it I'll try to get the relevant act from my treasury friend that actually knows these things off the to of their head

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I can't believe you're actually being this pedantic. MHoC is a debating society. Debate the contents of the statement, rather than who should be making it or not


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Can we be in Government now then? After all, it's only a debating club (where the left don't want to have their arguments scrutinised) so clearly procedure style be ignored. Hell, put the national liberals in government! Oh, you want to follow procedure to fulfill your power lust? Then do it properly.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    According to the recent budget, this Government was spending £8.5 Billion on Foreign Aid. If we take this £1.2 billion from that we are left with £7.3 billion.

    If I am to read the comments correctly the Government changed its Foreign Aid spending commitment from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. Can I get a conformation from this Government that this will still be met with only £7.3 billion being spent.

    I would also like to know what this Government is now doing to help countries that were previously reliant on part of the £1.2 billion to build fossil fuel power stations. The last thing we would want is to see this government turning its back on third world countries. Should the £1.2 billion have been spent on clean fuels for those countries, rather then moving it to another budget all together.

    Also I agree the Chancellor should probably have released this statement.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    As mentioned in the post above which perfectly articulates my issues on what could be many possible neglected countries: I'm worried about any long term impact on developing countries. Whilst I'm happy money is being diverted , the weigh up of who'll be affected now could easily out weigh that of those helped further in time from newly built NHS facilities.

    IMHO, I think a better alternative would be to help those countries by investing in cheaper renewable energy and with any money we have 'saved' , reinvest that into the NHS.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Is this an SoI or a general statement?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Is this an SoI or a general statement?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    SOI, hence why it is lable D S08
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    SOI, hence why it is lable D S08
    Oh right OK, I just can't decide whether this is health with a little foreign or the other way round.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Oh right OK, I just can't decide whether this is health with a little foreign or the other way round.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    50/50
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    50/50
    Right

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can we be in Government now then? After all, it's only a debating club (where the left don't want to have their arguments scrutinised) so clearly procedure style be ignored. Hell, put the national liberals in government! Oh, you want to follow procedure to fulfill your power lust? Then do it properly.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Do you want us to stand aside and let you govern? Is it because you can't get there on your own merit? The fact that some of you Tories are so bitter is ridiculous. I didn't hear Cameron begging Blair or Brown to let the Tories govern. They had to get in on merit. Furthermore, it doesn't matter who is in Government - there is still going to be debate.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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: February 21, 2016
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • 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.

  • 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

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