V1489 – Foreign Aid Target Bill 2019 Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye (22)
50%
Of the contrary, no (15)
34.09%
Abstain (7)
15.91%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#1

What is this thread about?
This is a vote in the Model House of Commons (MHoC). This item has already been debated in the House, and is now being voted on by MPs. If you're not an MP, please do not vote or comment here, even if you are able to do so!

What is the MHoC?
It's a political role-playing game where we pretend to be the House of Commons, and it's been going since 2005. We have formed parties, we have elections twice a year, and we debate bills and motions just like the real-life parliament. If you want to know more about how the MHoC works, your first port of call is the user manual. If you'd like to get involved and possibly join a party, you want the welcome thread.


V1489 – Foreign Aid Target Bill 2019, TSR Libertarian Party
Foreign Aid Target Bill 2019

An Act to remove the UN 0.7% target from law.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1.Repeals
(1) International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 is hereby repealed.

2.Short title, Commencement, Extent
(1) This act may be cited as the Foreign Aid Target Act 2019
(2) This act comes into force on upon royal assent
(3) This act extends to the United Kingdom

Notes
The 0.7% target prevents prioritising spending over results which jeopardies the effectiveness and quality of aid programmes. It deprives future governments the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances at abroad and at home. Aid should be judged by the criteria of effectiveness and value for money, not by whether a specific arbitrary spending target is reached.

Repeals
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ntents/enacted
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 months ago
#2
Let's remove this pointless spending target that has never been efficiently reached, thereby cutting significant waste like £5m to Yegna, and £243m in World Bank admin fees, subsidies for the Indian foreign aid budget, and training of Palestinian terrorists.

Perhaps a third round of Tories refusing to vote for their own policies too.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 2 months ago
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 months ago
#3
A bit of hypocrisy from the Libertarians given the earlier Defense target. But I’ll support it grudgingly on the grounds that whilst I would happily see aid money spent at even higher levels, I am highly sceptical of forced caps/ lower bounds that reduce the amount of manoeuvrability available to the Treasury when delivering a Budget
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 months ago
#4
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Let's remove this pointless spending target that has never been efficiently reached, thereby cutting significant waste like £5m to Yegna, and £243m in World Bank admin fees, subsidies for the Indian foreign aid budget, and training of Palestinian terrorists.

Perhaps a third round of Tories refusing to vote for their own policies too.
Hear hear!
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 months ago
#5
(Original post by Jarred)
A bit of hypocrisy from the Libertarians given the earlier Defense target. But I’ll support it grudgingly on the grounds that whilst I would happily see aid money spent at even higher levels, I am highly sceptical of forced caps/ lower bounds that reduce the amount of manoeuvrability available to the Treasury when delivering a Budget
Hardly hypocritical when one budget is a white elephant and waste of taxpayer’s money; whereas the other is a legitimate and underfunded role of the state which needs to have prime upkeep.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 months ago
#6
(Original post by Jarred)
A bit of hypocrisy from the Libertarians given the earlier Defense target. But I’ll support it grudgingly on the grounds that whilst I would happily see aid money spent at even higher levels, I am highly sceptical of forced caps/ lower bounds that reduce the amount of manoeuvrability available to the Treasury when delivering a Budget
I would say it is far from hypocrisy because the two aren't really comparable. If we look at foreign aid we see that for decades it has sat at about half current levels and it just squeaks past 0.7% now because it has to and it achieves that via wasteful spending because it has to:


Compare that to the defence budget which has been at significantly higher levels for over half a century and has been at current levels for centuries, although not so easy to get precise figures, we have the limiting factor not being what can be spent but how much is allowed to be spent.

0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 months ago
#7
Aye!!!!!!!!! This allows for much more reasonable spending without having to worry about silly targets, which leads to silly spending.
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 months ago
#8
'It deprives future governments the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances at abroad and at home' - this is slighlty unrelated but why not remove all legal spending obligations? Seems a bit arbitrary to say we should be spending so and so on defence but if it's something else then it's all of a sudden fine to remove spending duties for that. I get the idea that defence is important but equally, defence spending should adjust to changing circumstances abroad and at home... so there's clearly inconsistency here.

Regardless, I generally agree with increasing flexibility. So it will be an Aye.
0
username3973192
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 months ago
#9
Saracen's Fez if my vote was abstain/yes can you please change it to no.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#10
One No has been removed as tengentoppa is no longer an MP.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#11
The Ayes to the right: 22
The Noes to the left: 15
Abstentions: 7

The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it! Unlock!

Turnout: 88%
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What was the hardest A-level paper of 2019?

Edexcel Maths paper 1 (39)
24.22%
Edexcel Maths paper 2 (55)
34.16%
AQA Chemistry Paper 2 (27)
16.77%
Edexcel Maths Paper 3 (14)
8.7%
AQA Physics Paper 3 (26)
16.15%

Watched Threads

View All