All This Cash, From A Country That Cannot Afford To Look After It's Own Elderly?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/744154/Theresa-May-pledges-foreign-aid-money-Syria-Aleppo-rebels-Assad-Russia

Four random headlines from September of this year.

UK Government promises extra £103mn aid to South Sudan

Britain pledges £750m to help improve the lives of Afghans

Theresa May to send hundreds of troops to Somalia and £660 million ...

Theresa May commits £750 million to help tackle migrant crisis

Just in those 5 examples I make that £2,283 million

[fiction-factory]

Whether we regard £12 billion a year as peanuts (just 0.7% pf GDP) or as a a huge amount is just a matter of semantics. We are committed to giving this amount to foreign aid and no major party is seeking to reduce it. The announcement of particular aid projects doesn't change the total. No doubt a fair part is wasted so we need to make sure it is spent in the best way- and that often means as investment to secure future contracts or to support a political ally. We need to sort out elderly care but the money for now can't come from the Foreign Aid budget, however many times someone starts a thread on the topic

[sunny-dave]

If they show us the legal, mandated reason for the expenditure there's little you or I can do to stop any spending - whether it's £12 or £12 billion.

We can campaign against it though - hence Brexit - although whether that saves the money is yet to be seen.

[Gromit]

AOG,

// A Country That Cannot Afford To Look After It's Own Elderly //
The UK currently pays £80BILLION annually in the state pension. We can and do look after the elderly.

[Bigbad]

I would be far more impressed if the headline had been about repealing the ridiculous law that forces us to give the 0.7%, rather than telling us what we are wasting it on next.

When you hear that people in the UK can’t get life enhancing/life lengthening drugs because they are too expensive, or that the old folk can’t get the care they need, then that is really sad.

Most British politicians like to show the rest of the world how altruistic they are to the foreigners, but it’s to the detriment of their own country.

[fiction-factory]

Yes, the law doesn't make sense to me. We should be able to flex it based on needs and affordability.
But even without it it is unlikely the figure would change much as the 0.7% figure is used by G7 countries and UK regards itself as a key member of the G7 and as a leading/influential nation on the world stage. It's hard to imagine any UK PM saying to the G7 that we are no longer able/willing to be a major economy with influence . Maybe in time the G7 may change the target but I think it's more likely to go up rather than significantly down

[Bigbad]

fiction-factory @ 16.48
As far as I am concerned, on the subject of foreign aid “the law is a ass”!
And I hope you are wrong in thinking that contributions may go up.

[hereIam]

So bloody annoying, but what can we do ???

[Gromit]

Bigbad
The amount given in Aid is always going to go up because it is a % of our GDP. Our GDP rises annually, so 0.7% is going to raise a greater amount of (£) money.
The only way for aid to be reduced is for our GDP to nosedive, and no one wants that.

[Bigbad]

There is another way Gromit:
Repeal the stupid law or (highly unlikely) hope that one day we have a government that puts it’s own citizens first and has the balls to tell that to the other G7 nations.

I firmly believe that ALL foreign aid should be funded by personal charitable donations, then the people who care more about foreigners can donate and give themselves a nice warm, fuzzy feeling, and those of us that don’t give a toss, wouldn’t be able to complain.

[fiction-factory]

To build on that, Bigbad, maybe all tax should be scrapped and replaced by voluntary donations - the NHS charity, the benefits charity, the pensioners charity, the education charity, the social care charity. Or maybe not. The government may well waste some foreign aid and some may be 'wasted' on helping foreigners deal with famine and disasters, but some is an investment which can lead to future trade/contracts and some is political to help keep foreign powers on our side

[Bigbad]

“To build on that, Bigbad, maybe all tax should be scrapped and replaced by voluntary donations - the NHS charity, the benefits charity, the pensioners charity, the education charity, the social care charity”.

Assuming that you are not serious, fiction-factory, as UK taxes are raised to fund (funnily enough) the UK NHS the UK benefits system and UK pensions.

Famine and similar ‘disasters’ happen in countries where they are too uneducated to do anything about it, and the billions of pounds that have been thrown at them over countless years have made no difference.

Do you honestly believe that if we stopped foreign aid, then the civilised world would no longer trade with us? I say the civilised world, because what do these starving and war-torn countries have that we want?

[fiction-factory]

I'm just saying the government's foreign Aid expenditure is not just giving money away to charitable causes overseas- a big chunk is investment that helps us win trade deals or get contracts- for example to build dams- or ensure we have some political influence. Just look at how the Tories justify the foreign aid bill- and all the other parties except UKIP agree- they want to spend a fraction less

[Bigbad]

Money to build dams - shame money wasn’t spent on UK flood defences before all those British citizens got flooded out.
Wasn’t money recently wasted on an airport?
With some of the potholes I have to drive over to get from A to B makes me wonder sometimes if I will make it with all my tyres in tact, so never mind foreign airports. What about British roads?

And we have to throw money away to have ‘political influence’?

If UK governments would put their own citizens first, then maybe that would influence other governments to do the same, then if there was no money being thrown at them, perhaps these backwards countries would realise they have to help themselves.

[fiction-factory]

I never said we should throw money away. was simply saying that some of the money given as foreign aid is not charity but intended to secure contracts, gain political influence and position ourselves for future trade deals, so some of it comes back- in fact maybe we sometimes get back more in the longer run than we pay out. If the only foreign aid was based on voluntary donations it would probably just go to things like migrants in Calais (we know some support this), the starving in Africa (fair enough perhaps) and maybe some elephant sanctuaries or similar- all good causes but bringing no benefits to UK plc

[douglas9401]

Come on now, we send foreign aid, they send doctors and engineers. Somewhat dishevelled and possibly a bit damp, but they send them all the same.
It's true, I saw it on the telly.

[Bigbad]

If folks want to donate to an elephant sanctuary, then that’s their choice, but when UK taxpayers money is spent on foreign aid, then UK taxpayers are not choosing how to spend it.

“All this “you scratch my back and we will see you as influential” nonsense works both ways (or at least, it should, if it does indeed happen), but I find it a bit ridiculous to believe that if we give money to Sudan,(example) then Italy (example) will be beating a path to our door with a trade deal.
“we sometimes get back more in the longer run than we pay out”. Really? Then where is it going then? Probably to the parasites that have made it out of their county and into ours!

[fiction-factory]

okay- none of us knows whether some of it brings benefits or not for certain but rightly or wrongly all the main political parties agree that spending 0.7% of GDP is the minimum we should spend and that although some may be wasted it is, on the whole, money that should be spent. All the parties have a view on the benefits/justification of such aid. Even UKIP don't want to scrap it - just trim it. But it's good that people have different opinions on here and that politicians don't take it for granted that we want them to spend our money on whatever they feel is right.

[fiction-factory]

India is an example of where me may get back more than we have pai in if we can get a good trading relationship as their economy grows (especially post Brexit)

[Bigbad]

Well, fiction-factory I think we can safely say that you and I definitely have differing opinions on this subject!
Of all the political projects that get undertaken, sending British money abroad is certainly the one that makes the ‘red mist’ descend for me! (That and all the Brexit delaying tactics).

Time to watch some telly. You have a nice evening.

[New Judge]

“0.7% is £12billion, that's a lot to give to foreigners.”

Especially if you have to borrow it. I ask you, who borrows money to give away to foreigners?

“…but some is an investment which can lead to future trade/contracts “

All pigs fully serviced, refuelled and ready for take-off.

The nonsense of the 0.7% law (apart from the fact that it shouldn't be law at all that dictates how much we send abroad) is that the percentage is of GDP (i.e. turnover). It should be a percentage of profit (i.e. surplus of income over expenditure). No surplus, no donation. But that would be a bit too simple I suppose.