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

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    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’
    Actually you are because it’s the same thing
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    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?
    I know you love to make pointless points but what I said was correct.

    They could if they wanted to and if they didn’t at least the deficit would be smaller. That’s less cuts for us.

    As for it being a good idea that’s subjective depending on opinion. What I said, is not.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    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.
    Exactly the point I was making
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by paul514)
    I know you love to make pointless points but what I said was correct.

    They could if they wanted to and if they didn’t at least the deficit would be smaller. That’s less cuts for us.

    As for it being a good idea that’s subjective depending on opinion. What I said, is not.
    Not really, no.
    They could also nuke Paris, doesnt mean they would.
    No what you said was just tosh.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Not really, no.
    They could also nuke Paris, doesnt mean they would.
    No what you said was just tosh.
    You said they couldn’t reduced foreign aid.

    They could.

    You said they wouldn’t spend it on the homeless, they could but at least it could come off the deficit which means less cuts.

    It’s not tosh, it’s fact and your talking crap.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by paul514)
    You said they couldn’t reduced foreign aid.
    Please learn to read, i said remove the DFiD budget, thats not just 'reducing' it that is removing.
    They could.
    I stand by my last comment
    You said they wouldn’t spend it on the homeless, they could but at least it could come off the deficit which means less cuts.
    See above.
    It’s not tosh, it’s fact and your talking crap.
    You're*
    If you say so pet.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    You're*
    If you say so pet.
    I do, you always do this
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    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?

    Firstly, it's going up rapidly every year. If you think 13bn is small, think how many tax receipts are taken to make up this.

    If you think it's relatively small so we shouldn't bother doing anything, that's reckless.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    Firstly, it's going up rapidly every year. If you think 13bn is small, think how many tax receipts are taken to make up this.

    If you think it's relatively small so we shouldn't bother doing anything, that's reckless.
    The welfare cuts amount to something like 11/12 billion over the course of the parliament which is less than one year of aid.

    1 year of aid can build 130,000 council houses
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The government should focus on reducing external UK/EU trade barriers which make it difficult for developing countries to export goods into the EU. Trade is far far more beneficial than aid in my opinion so if the UK really wants to help the developing world then it would remove or at least significantly reduce both tariff and non-tariff barriers.

    There is also a very serious problem of transparency in the UK, which makes people very suspicious of how DFID uses aid money. The UK currently is not fully transparent on where aid goes, all that it gives the public are the annual "Statistics on International Development" document and the online DevTracker tool, both of these are insufficient to determine how the UK really spends all it's aid money as they are generic publications which do not document all spending. The UK should release the entire DFID ARIES aid dataset for the public to scrutinise so we can see where the aid money really goes. We should be able to see exactly where every single penny of this development aid goes. If there is no transparency then I think the public has the right to ask for the aid budget to significantly reduced.

    OP, even if the UK wanted to scrap the entire aid budget, it would probably not be able to easily do that because of international obligations the UK has a senior member in various international organisations. For instance, the biggest recipient of multilateral aid out of the aid budget is the EU (this goes to the EU's development arm and forms part of our net contribution to the EU) at around £1.3billion, this is followed by the another institution called the World Bank which gets around £1.2billion (this money predominantly goes to providing loans to developing countries at sub-market interest rates). Other institutions where we have a standing in like for example the UN, IMF e.t.c also get allocations to keep them running. The main organisation multilateral organisation people think about when they hear the word aid, the World Food Programme (WFP), oddly gets only £40 million. Spending on vaccines is also widely boasted about but only £200 - £300 million goes to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation. So always keep in mind a lot of aid goes to multilateral organisations like the ones names above, direct UK-to-country bilateral aid is only about half of all aid.

    Also a point of note that a lot of people do not know that a significant amount of aid money is actually dispersed here in the UK. Tens of thousands of students (over 25000 last time I checked) have received masters and PhD degrees in the UK off of fully funded scholarships that were paid for by the overseas aid budget. Refuges in this country are also supported out of the overseas aid budget (this falls under the category "in-donor aid" and the UK oddly counts this as bilateral aid), the exact amount spent is not disclosed, just the total in-donor component is disclosed. So you should also bear in mind that not all aid money leaves the country completely.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The Foreign Aid racket is theft of the taxpayer - look at Oxfam for a start!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by paul514)
    I do, you always do this
    Again, if you say so :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by History98)
    The government should focus on reducing external UK/EU trade barriers which make it difficult for developing countries to export goods into the EU. Trade is far far more beneficial than aid in my opinion so if the UK really wants to help the developing world then it would remove or at least significantly reduce both tariff and non-tariff barriers.

    There is also a very serious problem of transparency in the UK, which makes people very suspicious of how DFID uses aid money. The UK currently is not fully transparent on where aid goes, all that it gives the public are the annual "Statistics on International Development" document and the online DevTracker tool, both of these are insufficient to determine how the UK really spends all it's aid money as they are generic publications which do not document all spending. The UK should release the entire DFID ARIES aid dataset for the public to scrutinise so we can see where the aid money really goes. We should be able to see exactly where every single penny of this development aid goes. If there is no transparency then I think the public has the right to ask for the aid budget to significantly reduced.

    OP, even if the UK wanted to scrap the entire aid budget, it would probably not be able to easily do that because of international obligations the UK has a senior member in various international organisations. For instance, the biggest recipient of multilateral aid out of the aid budget is the EU (this goes to the EU's development arm and forms part of our net contribution to the EU) at around £1.3billion, this is followed by the another institution called the World Bank which gets around £1.2billion (this money predominantly goes to providing loans to developing countries at sub-market interest rates). Other institutions where we have a standing in like for example the UN, IMF e.t.c also get allocations to keep them running. The main organisation multilateral organisation people think about when they hear the word aid, the World Food Programme (WFP), oddly gets only £40 million. Spending on vaccines is also widely boasted about but only £200 - £300 million goes to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation. So always keep in mind a lot of aid goes to multilateral organisations like the ones names above, direct UK-to-country bilateral aid is only about half of all aid.

    Also a point of note that a lot of people do not know that a significant amount of aid money is actually dispersed here in the UK. Tens of thousands of students (over 25000 last time I checked) have received masters and PhD degrees in the UK off of fully funded scholarships that were paid for by the overseas aid budget. Refuges in this country are also supported out of the overseas aid budget (this falls under the category "in-donor aid" and the UK oddly counts this as bilateral aid), the exact amount spent is not disclosed, just the total in-donor component is disclosed. So you should also bear in mind that not all aid money leaves the country completely.
    Whats up with the IATI dataset published by DfID,?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Whats up with the IATI dataset published by DfID,?
    Just looked into IATI, it basically just replicates the data published on Devtracker but presents it in a standardised format called the IATI standard, it does not document all of DFiD spending, which is the issue I was raising. How are we supposed to know, for example, how much of the bilateral aid is used to support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK for instance?

    You should also remember that despite it being a common perception, DFiD is actually not the only department which disperses overseas aid money so their datasets will obviously not be exhaustive, they can't do it alone. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office, HM Revenue and Customs, Export Credits Guarantee Department, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Home Office, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Department of Health, Department for Work and Pensions, Ministry of Defence e.t.c also get money which they use for overseas aid but they all do very little to document how the money is spent. Where is the data for that spending?

    I mean the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills got almost £200M in 2015, why can't it publish a document outlining where all expenditure over £20,000 that relates to that overseas aid allocation? It shouldn't be that difficult.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by History98)
    Just looked into IATI, it basically just replicates the data published on Devtracker but presents it in a standardised format called the IATI standard, it does not document all of DFiD spending, which is the issue I was raising. How are we supposed to know, for example, how much of the bilateral aid is used to support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK for instance?

    You should also remember that despite it being a common perception, DFiD is actually not the only department which disperses overseas aid money so their datasets will obviously not be exhaustive, they can't do it alone. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office, HM Revenue and Customs, Export Credits Guarantee Department, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Home Office, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Department of Health, Department for Work and Pensions, Ministry of Defence e.t.c also get money which they use for overseas aid but they all do very little to document how the money they spend. Where is the data for that spending?

    I mean the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills got almost £200M in 2015, why can't it publish a document outlining where all expenditure over £20,000 that relates to that overseas aid allocation? It shouldn't be that difficult.
    How would giving ARIES data rather than the IATI answer any of those questions better?

    A quick google shows the FCO, DEFRA and BEIS publish their IATI data, didn't google the others you mentioned.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    How would giving ARIES data rather than the IATI answer any of those questions better?

    A quick google shows the FCO, DEFRA and BEIS publish their IATI data, didn't google the others you mentioned.
    And will the data you have found allow you to give a breakdown of how BEIS, DEFRA, HO and the like spent their overseas aid money allocation this financial year? Have they given sufficient detail that would allow you to produce a document showing a rough breakdown of their spending? All government departments are obviously going to publish some data, and they will make that data available in different formats, including this IATI documentation framework format, but when it comes to aid at least data is not exhaustive. They need to do that so we can be sure that every single million is spent well.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by History98)
    And will the data you have found allow you to give a breakdown of how BEIS, DEFRA, HO and the like spent their overseas aid money allocation this financial year? Have they given sufficient detail that would allow you to produce a document showing a rough breakdown of their spending? All government departments are obviously going to publish some data, and they will make that data available in different formats, including this IATI documentation framework format, but when it comes to aid at least data is not exhaustive. They need to do that so we can be sure that every single million is spent well.
    Yes?

    Otherwise the 0.7% can't be substantiated. Which it can/is.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    To be spending money on foreign "aid" which has been proved to not be as beneficial as first thought, along wth the fact that with the recent Oxfam debacle we know aid isn't always morale, especially when given to large corporations is it really worth it?

    When you put into perspective is spending more on other countries to not really become self sufficient than on our own police budget right?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yes?
    Otherwise the 0.7% can't be substantiated. Which it can/is.
    No, you can not do it with any reasonable granularity, the data is not released. All you can see in many situations are broad allocations (e.g Home Office - £150m, e.t.c.). There is no way that I know of for the public to see a breakdown of spending of the stated 0.7% with any reasonable granularity. Obviously the government itself can see a detailed breakdown of spending as it has the data internally but the public can't do it, which means more importantly that the public has no idea what kind of aid activities the government actually undertakes in many cases.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The answer is No in my opinion.

    Foreign aid as it currently is represents government waste, the taxing of the taxpayer to make a few people feel happy. Either we should reform it to simply double charity donations to a certain level which would put foreign aid in the hands of the market and consumer or better yet, we can abolish foreign aid (keep a £3bn emergency fund for floods and the like) and spend the money more wisely elsewhere while reducing the deficit.
 
 
 

3,131

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.