Turn on thread page Beta

Should we have to spend 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you believe the UK should spend a minimum of 0.7% each year on foreign aid?
    Yes
    47.46%
    No
    52.54%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    Then you don't know nothing about the military. So an occasional carpet bomb isn't heavy bombing? A 2000lb bomb isn't heavy bombing? Heavy bombing doesn't necessarily mean the amount.

    Exactly, so heavy bombing by NATO forces of which the UK took part lol, directed under British commanders.. Oh really? http://m.naharnet.com/stories/en/131...ime-explosives In Serbia, most of the areas still infected with unexploded mines and bombs from 1999 NATO bombing campaign.
    There was no carpet bombing of anywhere in the former Yugoslavia.
    The term 'heavy bombing' refers to the intensity of the raid, not the weight of a particular munition.
    The article that you quote refers mostly to land mines, which I also mentioned. The 1999 Nato bombing campaign was against Serbia in response to its actions in Kosovo. I was writing about a different conflict in a different country.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I actually take Jacob Rees-Mogg's point on this: targeted spending is not a good way to run government finances. The way to avoid that, of course, is to treat these measures as a floor, not a target: we should be doing more, not just trying to hit these numbers as best we can.

    I'm a big fan of UK international development work. We really do lead the world in this, and from a wholly selfish perspective it benefits UK trade as well as giving us an incredible soft-power base across the globe.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    There was no carpet bombing of anywhere in the former Yugoslavia.
    The term 'heavy bombing' refers to the intensity of the raid, not the weight of a particular munition.
    The article that you quote refers mostly to land mines, which I also mentioned. The 1999 Nato bombing campaign was against Serbia in response to its actions in Kosovo. I was writing about a different conflict in a different country.
    I didn't say that. It was an example.

    It can be used to describe both.

    Yes, but NATO bombs too. I think I messed up the link I had.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...taly052199.htm
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    I didn't say that. It was an example.

    It can be used to describe both.

    Yes, but NATO bombs too. I think I messed up the link I had.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...taly052199.htm
    You are still confusing two separate conflicts. In Bosnia, between 1992 and 1995 NATO air forces conducted limited operations, and the RAF were only a small part of that. The main reason for the limited use of air power was that the Serbs often took UN peacekeepers hostage and threatened to kill them if the raids continued. That's why Srebrenica was overrun.
    In 1999 in Kosovo the NATO response was much stronger, and involved attacks on strategic positions in Serbia. That's what your article refers to. Kosovo is now receiving EU overseas aid to support the rule of law and reconciliation between the different factions.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    It seems rather bizarre to me that our government is obsessed with meeting a spending target (which will change/increase depending on the economy) rather than assessing the desired outcomes and budgeting accordingly.


    Don't get me wrong, I fully support ending poverty, providing disaster relief, improving health abroad but the arbritary target (which no other western country complies with) is often fuelling corruption and putting local people out of work.

    For example on the east coast of Africa, paying nations so Europeans fish in their waters, while local people can't. Or giving handouts of food so local farmers are uncompetitive so stop producing.

    Also charities may be a more sensible way than borrowing money we will have to pay back to go on often wasteful spending sprees.


    If you agree, there's an official petition here, any UK national can quickly sign and at 100,000 signatures parliament will have to debate:

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200292
    Of course not.

    It is fundamentally wrong to send taxpayers money abroad when we have so many fundamental problems in this country and we borrow the money to send it abroad.

    It shouldn’t be cut but scrapped all together and single donations of aid or use of uk assets used for individual circumstance like for the Ebola outbreak
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    We've done that. We continue to do that. Where's your point if money will continue to go to vaccinations? Noone is saying stop vaccinations? You're making yourself look silly now.
    I am, it’s a horrible thing to do but there are way too many people in the world anyway.

    Population is now 250% higher than 100 years ago and 700% higher than 200 years ago.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I am, it’s a horrible thing to do but there are way too many people in the world anyway.

    Population is now 250% higher than 100 years ago and 700% higher than 200 years ago.
    Hahaha bloody hell
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    They were poorer before the empire

    We are in so much debt we will probably never be able to pay it off.

    If homeless people in the uk must go to charities, why can't other countries do the same?
    India had an ancient education system and we destroyed it, debt CREATES new money, if we have NO debt then wealth creation would grind to a halt, rich countries such as Britain GROW on debt, if debt grows we grow in wealth, if debt £ value drops, wealth creation slows or decline what needs to happen is lower the % to GDP.

    Other countries do not have this opportunity, hence why UK gives aid.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    India had an ancient education system and we destroyed it, debt CREATES new money, if we have NO debt then wealth creation would grind to a halt, rich countries such as Britain GROW on debt, if debt grows we grow in wealth, if debt £ value drops, wealth creation slows or decline what needs to happen is lower the % to GDP.

    Other countries do not have this opportunity, hence why UK gives aid.
    If we had a system that allowed us to choose to fund foreign aid or spend the money here on helping the homeless etc or just going into the nhs I bet people wouldn’t choose to fund foreign aid
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Nope.

    We already spend too much on foreign aid.

    It's time to put British people first, and use some of the money to solve domestic problems.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezisola)
    We should not send anything abroad while there are still people legitimately homeless and hungry in this country.
    You seem to be laboring under the illusion that if the government suddenly stopped its foreign aid contributions they could or would turn it instead to the homeless et al. here. This comes across as not but a whimsical dream. Especially given the ministers keep waffling on about the homeless being the scourge of society and a bunch of crack addled misfits.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    You seem to be laboring under the illusion that if the government suddenly stopped its foreign aid contributions they could or would turn it instead to the homeless et al. here. This comes across as not but a whimsical dream. Especially given the ministers keep waffling on about the homeless being the scourge of society and a bunch of crack addled misfits.
    Of course they could.

    Would they? Who knows? At least there would be a smaller deficit
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    You seem to be laboring under the illusion that if the government suddenly stopped its foreign aid contributions they could or would turn it instead to the homeless et al. here. This comes across as not but a whimsical dream. Especially given the ministers keep waffling on about the homeless being the scourge of society and a bunch of crack addled misfits.
    Likewise, the current government isn't going to actually reduce foreign aid. So by your logic we shouldn't discuss any ideas which would improve the country, only what will likely happen.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    India had an ancient education system and we destroyed it, debt CREATES new money, if we have NO debt then wealth creation would grind to a halt, rich countries such as Britain GROW on debt, if debt grows we grow in wealth, if debt £ value drops, wealth creation slows or decline what needs to happen is lower the % to GDP.

    Other countries do not have this opportunity, hence why UK gives aid.
    Not really that ancient, and not very useful, much less useful than the education the British introduced.

    Would you care to explain how massive debt is beneficial?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Not really that ancient, and not very useful, much less useful than the education the British introduced.

    Would you care to explain how massive debt is beneficial?
    He’s on about fiat currency where money backed by nothing is created when banks issue loans.

    He’s wrong about that’s how wealth creation happens though as we created wealth before fiat currency existed in the old form of the pound Stirling and the gold standard.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    He’s on about fiat currency where money backed by nothing is created when banks issue loans.

    He’s wrong about that’s how wealth creation happens though as we created wealth before fiat currency existed in the old form of the pound Stirling and the gold standard.
    I’m talking about the U.K. government national debt, which is not a result of banks creating money when they create loans, it’s generally from the government selling bonds or issuing currency. Neither of which ‘create wealth’
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    Likewise, the current government isn't going to actually reduce foreign aid. So by your logic we shouldn't discuss any ideas which would improve the country, only what will likely happen.
    Pray tell how reducing foreign aid would 'improve the country' - what a farcical notion.
    (Original post by paul514)
    Of course they could.

    Would they? Who knows? At least there would be a smaller deficit
    Anyone with half a brain cell I imagine, there is a better chance of Britain reclaiming the empire than the government binning the DfiD budget and giving it to the homeless.
    There would also be a much smaller deficit if the government trippled the tax rates - doesnt mean its a good idea though does it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Pray tell how reducing foreign aid would 'improve the country' - what a farcical notion.
    That wasn't the point I was making, but since you ask, when our 'aid' arms terrorists, feeds corruption, puts poor people out of work it negatively impacts us and the world.

    If we cut wasteful spending it means we can either spend more on priorities or have a lower debt, which needs to be paid off by taxpayers now and in the future.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    That wasn't the point I was making, but since you ask, when our 'aid' arms terrorists, feeds corruption, puts poor people out of work it negatively impacts us and the world.

    If we cut wasteful spending it means we can either spend more on priorities or have a lower debt, which needs to be paid off by taxpayers now and in the future.
    What point were you making then?
    The aid to terrorists usually comes out of the defense budget or various 'slush funds' but any way. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim that this aid money is not but used for nefarious means?

    It may well do but seeing as DFiD has a meager budget anyway it would hardly make a difference. There are much bigger and more useless things we could cut like the spectacular waste of money for Trident or the new nuclear plant. Or better yet simply tidying up government in general, the waste those fat cats generate is obscene - whilst the link is slightly dated please see this;
    http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/new...teful_spending
    £120Bn > £13Bn... See why i find it humorous that DFiD attracts so much ire compared to the rest of Westminster and Whitehall?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    You seem to be laboring under the illusion that if the government suddenly stopped its foreign aid contributions they could or would turn it instead to the homeless et al. here. This comes across as not but a whimsical dream. Especially given the ministers keep waffling on about the homeless being the scourge of society and a bunch of crack addled misfits.
    Well they certainly could
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.