'If you were chancellor, what'd you cut?' poll discussion

rickbonar

sparky421 wrote: »

Shame on us for voting to cut overseas aid! It's pitifully small as it is, Are we really saying that it's OK for children to die of starvation or disease as long as I can have that extra cigarette or glass of wine..?

Unfortunately feeding them often is the equivalent of trying to put a fire out by pouring petrol on it.

There are plenty of people in Britain that can't afford a cigarette or wine.

darkpool

I see they propose to increase overseas aid to £12.6 billion a year. That's over £200 for each man/woman/child in the UK!! I'd rather have that £200 in my pocket.

As for the starving babies, well ask yourself if throwing money at a problem solves it. Perhaps it bad governance and corruption that causes problems in the third world. I also dare say the third world tendency for ethnic genocide causes a fair amount of starvation.

Before all you do gooders get on your high horses I would be happy giving money to the third world if I believed it solved problems. But I've not seen much evidence that it does.

Vaila

darkpool wrote: »

I see they propose to increase overseas aid to £12.6 billion a year. That's over £200 for each man/woman/child in the UK!! I'd rather have that £200 in my pocket.

As for the starving babies, well ask yourself if throwing money at a problem solves it. Perhaps it bad governance and corruption that causes problems in the third world. I also dare say the third world tendency for ethnic genocide causes a fair amount of starvation.

Before all you do gooders get on your high horses I would be happy giving money to the third world if I believed it solved problems. But I've not seen much evidence that it does.

i agree, completely. throwing money at the third world hasnt and will not solve anything, what is needed is a good gov, non corrupt leaders etc. as far as im concerned we ourselves should be paying off our own debts and sorting our own finances before we sort others. we should be sustaining ourselves with our own food and not importing things that are available in this land from others. i think they should scrap the winter heating allowance, free bus passes to pensioners with a considerable income/pension. lots of cuts could have been made to other things before they targetted the ill and the needy

Edny

12.6 billion for foreign aid and only 9 billion for law and order.
How many extra police officers would 12.6 billion create?

anglian22

We are borrowing money we don't have to give away in foreign aid. You and I then pay the interest on this debt.
As the years go by, pressure from immigrant communities to give money to their land of ethnic origin will grow, because they tend to have larger families and will have more clout in years to come. It's just the way of things.

India, for example has a space programme that costs almost exactly the same as the amount we give them every year.

Google "Gbadolite" (I'm not allowed to post links) to see how Zaire spent it's foriegn aid a few years back. The palace had a nuclear bunker for 500 people (in case a superpower wanted to bomb them back into the Stone Age? :rotfl:).

A lot of foriegn aid is swallowed up by the quangos and aid agencies. They have bigger budgets - and cars - than our embassies do.

Gareth_Lazelle

anglian22 wrote: »

Google "Gbadolite" (I'm not allowed to post links) to see how Zaire spent it's foriegn aid a few years back. The palace had a nuclear bunker for 500 people (in case a superpower wanted to bomb them back into the Stone Age? :rotfl:).

Maybe that was a response to Iraq? It doesn't look so dumb in the context of the West's behaviour in the last few decades...

Meh, fundamentally we signed up to provide foreign aid - we shriek pretty loudly if another country ignored their treaty obligations to us (Europe, fishing rights, etc),

How much honour do you want our politicians to display? And how important is Britain's honour?

Going back on our word is kind of dishonourable conduct, and if we're seen as willing to break our word it may well cost us in future negotiations (who wants a contract with an oath-breaker?),

anglian22

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

Maybe that was a response to Iraq? It doesn't look so dumb in the context of the West's behaviour in the last few decades...

Meh, fundamentally we signed up to provide foreign aid - we shriek pretty loudly if another country ignored their treaty obligations to us (Europe, fishing rights, etc),

How much honour do you want our politicians to display? And how important is Britain's honour?

Going back on our word is kind of dishonourable conduct, and if we're seen as willing to break our word it may well cost us in future negotiations (who wants a contract with an oath-breaker?),

It was built before the Iraq war. It isn't the fault of the West that one of Africa's most corrupt leaders blew millions on this palace, and the airports nearby that were big enough for Concorde to land. Dumb we were though, to give him this money. Criminally stupid even.

As regards our promises, I think we would gain international respect if our leaders said "Sorry, no more freebies. We are going to put our own people first."
If there are any screams from the bleeding heart liberals, the government could then tell the media where much of the aid ends up. Showing film of Mr and Mrs Mugabe spending thousands of pounds shopping in expensive shops while their people starve for instance.
I wonder how many millions in foreign aid are sitting in the Swiss bank acccounts of their leaders?

Gareth_Lazelle

anglian22 wrote: »

As regards our promises, I think we would gain international respect if our leaders said "Sorry, no more freebies. We are going to put our own people first."

You might not see it that way if you where next up to the negotiating table - indeed, you might be extremely worried,

Indeed, if you where going to sign a deal with a country that clearly "puts their own people first." you might be worried about being royally screwed... And quite rightly so (especially with democracies, where governments frequently change, and the new politicians might not be quite so amenable to previously signed deals).

You might well be happier signing a deal with a country that happily screwed its own people to meet its treaty commitments to your country...

How would you deal with signing a contract with a client you didn't trust?

anglian22 wrote: »

I wonder how many millions in foreign aid are sitting in the Swiss bank acccounts of their leaders?

I'm not going to defend corruption, but there are other solutions to that problem that could be pursued,

Maybe they should be?

anglian22

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

You might not see it that way if you where next up to the negotiating table - indeed, you might be extremely worried,

Indeed, if you where going to sign a deal with a country that clearly "puts their own people first." you might be worried about being royally screwed... And quite rightly so (especially with democracies, where governments frequently change, and the new politicians might not be quite so amenable to previously signed deals),

At the best we might be expected to stump up our cash/whatever first.

At the worst, loan interest rates and costs might rocket because we are seen as being untrustworthy,

I'm not going to defend corruption, but there are other solutions to that problem that could be pursued,

Maybe they should be?

No, I think the role of a government should first and foremost be to put the interests of its' citizens first. I don't believe that cutting foreign aid would make interest rates "rocket" as you suggest; if anything I think the city would be encouraged the government was willing to put financial stability above internationalist dogma.

Gareth_Lazelle

anglian22 wrote: »

I don't believe that cutting foreign aid would make interest rates "rocket" as you suggest; if anything I think the city would be encouraged the government was willing to put financial stability above internationalist dogma.

It's not cutting foreign aid, but the breaking of a government promise that is the issue.

Look, how do banks respond when you break a 'promise' to a financial institution (resulting in your credit rating dropping)?

They whack interest rates up on any future loans... Even if you take them out with a different bank,

Well, by the same token, if we are seen as reneging on our promises, we will be seen as risky,

(and remember, "putting our people first" doesn't really give us much political capital with other countries - our stability and likelihood of fulfilling our side of any deal is a much more important factor),

And if we are seen as risky (for whatever reason), our ability to negotiate good deals diminishes,