What government spending would you PROTECT? Poll discussion

redux

MSE_Dan wrote: »

All the figures are from here:

http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/dashboard/#/uk-bubble-chart/focus=TOTAL&year=2010-11

If you click into 'Running the country', Overseas economic aid is £12bn for 2010/11

The site is run by the Open Knowledge Foundation, and has been suported by many MPs

Hope that helps

Dan

Well, it seems to be a rather ambiguous subject then, as other sources have £5.5 million last year, and a projected £7.8 million this year, including the published annual report of the relevant Government department

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/812137-cut-aid-budget-to-spend-more-here-say-britons

Metro: But half of people believe the government’s £7.8billion annual foreign aid budget is too high and even more think the money should be spent at home instead. The government has committed £7.8billion to foreign aid for 2010-2011, up from £5.5billion in 2008-2009.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10272418.stm

BBC: Britain spends £3bn a year, about half of its overseas aid budget, through international bodies.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100105/text/100105w0061.htm

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of his Department's aid budget has been allocated to each recipient country in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09 and (c) 2009-10; and if he will make a statement. [306824]

Mr. Michael Foster: The Department for International Development's (DFID's) past and future spending allocations are laid out in our Annual Reports which are available at:

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/Annual-report/

And here's some detail from one of them

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/departmental-report/2009/vol2-resource-acc.pdf

- see page 5 and part of page 9


... and here is an article in January this year which says the Tories would ring-fence foreign aid from any cuts, and Mr Cameron was talking about allocating money to reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8460563.stm


... and here's a press release only a week old, quoting the incoming Minister Mr Mitchell talking about a review but not cuts, which presumably prompted the BBC article I linked above, and it too mentions the figure of £5.5 billion for 2008-2009

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Press-releases/2010/UK-to-review-multilateral-aid-spend/

The findings of the review will be made public later in the year.

In 2008/09. DFID spent £2.27 billion of its £5.5 billion programme budget through multilateral institutions. This included £574m for the World Bank and £252m for the UN.

In 2009/10, DFID estimates that around £3 billion of its programme budget through multilateral institutions. Detailed figures will be published in the DFID annual report later this year.

DFID currently funds over 30 organisations to undertake a broad range of activity, such as leading the fight against HIV, malaria and TB, humanitarian response and peacekeeping.




The organisations include:

• African Development Bank
• Asian Development Bank
• Caribbean Development Bank
• Central Emergency Response Fund
• Commonwealth Secretariat
• EU Commission
• Food and Agriculture Organisation
• Fast Track Initiative
• Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation Alliance
• Global Environment Facility
• Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria
• Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
• Inter-American Development Bank
• International Committee of the Red Cross
• International Development Association (part of World Bank)
• International Fund for Agricultural Development
• International Finance Corporation
• International Federation of the Red Cross
• International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
• Peace Building Fund
• UN HABITAT
• United Nations Joint Programme on HIV and AIDS
• United Nations Development Programme
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
• United Nations Population Fund
• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
• United Nations Children’s Fund
• United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
• United Nations Development Fund for Women
• International Drug Purchasing Facility
• United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
• World Bank
• World Food Programme
• World Health Organisation

Fortunately, the new government has not reneged on the country's commitment to organisations like the Red Cross, Unesco Unicef and the World Health Organisation. So I suggest that if the £5.5 billion last year increasing to £7.8 billion figures are wrong, blame the government - not this one or the last one, but both of them. And anyone on the other thread, over 40% of the votes, who wanted the foreign aid budget cut can blame both of them as well, as this seems to be a matter that is uncontended between the 3 main parties.

Or are there perhaps other allocations counted as foreign aid, but not from that Department?

tristram3

We must educate our work force at every level . It increases self esteem and confidance therefore have a motivated population with less crime , less cost to health and policing .
Another issue that should be addressed is the police should not have to pick up the cost of policing the drunken nights in our towns and cities. People need to take responsibility for their actions not the tax payer most of whom find it very threatening to go into the towns at night. Those picked up by the police or ambulances should pay for it. this includes A&E care.

webwiz

Reducing the deficit by more than the private sector can expand will take demand out of the economy thus pushing us back into recession. This is something we must do because the alternative is even worse, but some cuts hit the UK economy harder than others. Rather than choosing between departments (all of which should take a share of the cuts) the government should identify cuts which have the minimum effect on the UK, ie the money saved would have been disproportionately spent on imports. The overseas aid budget should be overhauled even if not reduced. We should replace all cash aid by free supply of goods and services produced in the UK. This would boost the UK economy and prevent corrupt politicians and officials in the recipient countries from mis-spending it.

redux

webwiz wrote: »

We should replace all cash aid by free supply of goods and services produced in the UK. This would boost the UK economy and prevent corrupt politicians and officials in the recipient countries from mis-spending it.

Do we really need this patronising and xenophobic bollox?

Is the Red Cross corrupt? UNICEF? The World Health Organisation? Any other people you want to sneer at?

Is it better value to provide goods made in the UK which might work out 5 or 10 times more expensive including the cost of shipping them around the world? How much does a mosquito net cost anyway?

The government has already said it is going to review things, but definitely not make any immediate cuts

brokeinwales

It's a bit of a simplistic poll (though polls generally are) as I think it's a bit more complicated than that. All of those suggetsed areas probably have places where savings could be made without any detriment to the service provided, and all have areas where spending should be protected. For example, could admin costs in the NHS be cut? But would that have an affect on accurate record keeping and result in fatalities? Should more money dedicated to education be put towards basic skills such as reading and maths, and less into arts and sports? Or would putting more money into arts and sport improve the mental and physical health of the nation and therefore actually save us money on the health service? Should we cut funding on post-16 education and concentrate on children, who are always considered somehow more important as it's their first chance in education - or should we actually put more money into vocational training for adults in the hope of improving skils in industry and benefitting the economy.
And of course - if we cut jobs from any aspect of the public sector you've instantly got more people claiming jobseekers allowance - and in a struggling economy the chances of them finding other work quickly are smaller, so they could be on it for a while - if there aren't private sector jobs for these people to go to you're just swapping one problem for another.

My point, ultimately, is - I'm not voting in the poll, because I think all options given are far too simplistic. This is a complex balancing act that needs to consider all kinds of different problems - you save money in one place, you risk creating a problem somewhere else. There are probably certain small areas of all these suggestions that need protecting, and certain others taht definetly don't.

rpb

carlw wrote: »

Is there any chance another option is added for none to be protected?

Yup, I wanted to vote "none" as well. There must be a lot of waste in all of these areas, and where there's waste there's room for savings!

Marisco

redux wrote: »

Do we really need this patronising and xenophobic bollox?

Is the Red Cross corrupt? UNICEF? The World Health Organisation? Any other people you want to sneer at?

Is it better value to provide goods made in the UK which might work out 5 or 10 times more expensive including the cost of shipping them around the world? How much does a mosquito net cost anyway?

The government has already said it is going to review things, but definitely not make any immediate cuts

I don't think anyone is sneering here! You had a pop at me on the "cuts" thread for saying the same thing!! Are you saying that not a penny in aid goes into the corrupt regimes' pockets? Many suggest giving benefit recipients vouchers for food and goods, so they won't spend the money on drink and fags, well this would be the same, albeit on a larger scale!!

redux

Marisco wrote: »

I don't think anyone is sneering here! You had a pop at me on the "cuts" thread for saying the same thing!! Are you saying that not a penny in aid goes into the corrupt regimes' pockets?

I don't think that was my exact response - I merely asked a question [which you didn't answer]:

I voted for overseas aid, not because I don't think they need a hand, but because I don't agree with giving actual money. Instead of sending money which ends up with corrupt officials or used to buy arms, why not build things for them, i.e housing, schools, irrigation systems, desalination plants etc? Train the people out there to help themselves.

How do you know such things are not amongst those already happening?

But capital projects still cost money.
____

Here is what some of those organisations have said about corruption:

The WHO seems to suggest that much of the corruption in pharmaceuticals is in developed countries

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs335/en/

UNICEF: It is a sad fact that corrupt governments do exist but of course children are not responsible for this. UNICEF ceasing to work in a particular country would only end up making children’s lives worse than they already are. Rather than stopping assistance in the face of these problems, the provision of targeted accountable aid can actually bolster a society and over time help to combat the difficulty of corruption itself.

http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_detail_full_story.asp?news_id=634

minerva_windsong

It's hard to say. I do agree with those who say that waste could be cut in all departments, and there are certain areas where I would like to see money reallocated (Trident scrapped and the money put towards equipment for troops in Afghanistan, road building and third runway at Heathrow scrapped and money put towards high speed rail, making public transport more affordable and re-opening the rail network). But the services I would put as my 'must keeps', in no particular order, are health, education and law and order. Less money in bureaucracy and more money in frontline services please.

krush500

How can anyone want to protect benefits. systematic fraud of the benefit system costs the most. a simple start is housing benefits where the tenant is now paid directly but can walk away with 2 months free housing benefit by not paying their rent with no come backs what so ever leaving landlords out of pocket. Also to claim job seekers etc surely you should be awarded this instead by completing community service during the week to receive at the end of it. Hey presto filled in potholes at a much lower cost, no rubbish on the streets and people not being able to scrounge all their lives !!!