Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Danny Deflation

Why Is "international Aid" Ringfenced From "ze Pain Ahead"?

Recommended Posts

Just curious, why have Tories "ringfenced" international aid from the forthcoming cuts?

I can understand ringfencing, say, health and education, but why not cut international aid for a few years until at least our own country's in a better position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, why have Tories "ringfenced" international aid from the forthcoming cuts?

I can understand ringfencing, say, health and education, but why not cut international aid for a few years until at least our own country's in a better position?

"International Aid" is probably a black ops slush fund. Shhhhh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, why have Tories "ringfenced" international aid from the forthcoming cuts?

I can understand ringfencing, say, health and education, but why not cut international aid for a few years until at least our own country's in a better position?

Because we already give a pittance of what we should?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, why have Tories "ringfenced" international aid from the forthcoming cuts?

I can understand ringfencing, say, health and education, but why not cut international aid for a few years until at least our own country's in a better position?

International aid saves lives.

Cutting international aid would kill lots of people abroad.

Killing people abroad is what labour were all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, why have Tories "ringfenced" international aid from the forthcoming cuts?

I can understand ringfencing, say, health and education, but why not cut international aid for a few years until at least our own country's in a better position?

Ringfencing anything is absurd, given the state of the countries finances IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

International aid saves lives.

Does it? I thought international aid went to African warlords and drug barons. Or maybe I'm just thinking of the money from Live Aid?

(Edit: apologies for my flippant reply. I'm not totally against international aid, I just don't think it should be ringfenced considering the dire state of the country at the mo.)

Edited by Danny Deflation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing should be ringfenced. Least of all the monstrous money-to-red-tape machine that is the NHS. International aid is a drop in the ocean by comparison, but should nevertheless be fair game for review.

If it is fairly reviewed and comes out unscathed, then I'm fine with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ringfencing anything is absurd, given the state of the countries finances IMO.

Agree totally.

I suspect, with a bit of planning, they could trim a fair bit from health and education (managers, trainers, "working parties", etc) without harming the basic service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree totally.

I suspect, with a bit of planning, they could trim a fair bit from health and education (managers, trainers, "working parties", etc) without harming the basic service.

I hope that they can improve the basic services for the same amount of money by cutting waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression is that the amount given in aid is so small that maintaining it will give good headlines while costing very little.

Okay - that's not an argument for why it SHOULD be maintained as much as an argument for why it MIGHT be maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, why have Tories "ringfenced" international aid from the forthcoming cuts?

I can understand ringfencing, say, health and education, but why not cut international aid for a few years until at least our own country's in a better position?

article-1076389-02488AB4000004B0-651_468x374.jpg

france_riots_day_2.jpg

cheap_tickets_250x251.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, why have Tories "ringfenced" international aid from the forthcoming cuts?

I can understand ringfencing, say, health and education, but why not cut international aid for a few years until at least our own country's in a better position?

I actually think that this is quite clever.

He is wary of being accused of cutting for ideological reasons. It is quite clever to ringfence international aid which the left supports to support the notion that the cuts are because of arithmetic and not ideology.

In to-day's speech, he did clear the way to adjust the recipients by stating that it should go to countries where the average income is less than a dollar a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its so we can pay for India's space programme and help the Chinese out because they'd rather hoard money than spend it on their own people. Doesn't make any sense to me either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree totally.

I suspect, with a bit of planning, they could trim a fair bit from health and education (managers, trainers, "working parties", etc) without harming the basic service.

Back of a fag packet maths says that we need to cut around 25% of EVERYTHING just to break even (i.e. reduce the defecit to 0) without even paying off any of the debt. Interest on debt alone would probably be able to fund the entire defense budget at the moment.

Given that education, health and welfare are probably the largest parts of UK budget spending, ringfencing any of those it going to mean significantly harsher cuts in other areas.

Edited by the.ciscokid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ringfencing anything is absurd, given the state of the countries finances IMO.

I think they will work their way around any promises they've made - hopefully in a 'reasonable' way. As others have, I think, suggested, the ring-fencing of the NHS may turn into a ring-fencing of patient care. However, that opens a very grey area (although a nice idea, the notion that all managers in the NHS have nothing to do with the quality of patient care, and can all be culled with impunity is patently false).

As another example, I work for a company that supplies the NHS with clinical databases - I'm certainly not feeling relaxed about the years ahead, or assuming that funding for database upgrades and implementations will not be affected by cuts... the only thing that stops me being terrified is possessing a reasonable skill-set and the fact that we undercut the competition.

The fact that clinicians like and recommend our software, on the other hand, does nothing to assuage any fears I have... my confidence that bureaucrats always make the correct cuts is pretty minimal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it? I thought international aid went to African warlords and drug barons. Or maybe I'm just thinking of the money from Live Aid?

(Edit: apologies for my flippant reply. I'm not totally against international aid, I just don't think it should be ringfenced considering the dire state of the country at the mo.)

It will undoubtedly save some lives though, as you say, much of it will end up in the hands of those it wasn't intended for.

Throwing money at people who have none is a stupid policy though & one which we should be winding down over time whilst increasing other ways of helping

give a man a fish etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing should be ringfenced. Least of all the monstrous money-to-red-tape machine that is the NHS. International aid is a drop in the ocean by comparison, but should nevertheless be fair game for review.

If it is fairly reviewed and comes out unscathed, then I'm fine with that.

Review question - does this aid help British inhabitants? Answer - No = cut to zero.

£7 billion aid would cut 10% off our deficit. Got to be the easiest cut ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainy it is crazy on the face of it. We are borrowing this money to hand over to people who are actually richer than the average young UK citizen, who doesn't just have zero, he has negative wealth (debt).

I think the poster above about the slush fund probably had it right though. Giving this money gives us power, or at least is perceived to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy isn't it?

We borrow money from the Chinese to keep the lights on in this Country.

Because we are so rich we help out the Chinese with international aid. :blink:

They must laugh themselves to sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

International aid saves lives.

Cutting international aid would kill lots of people abroad.

Killing people abroad is what labour were all about.

Aid only saves lives in emergency situations for example, flooding or civil war where people need urgent access to clean water, food and shelter. Bog standard aid does not help - there's an American academic called William Easterley who is particularly good on the subject:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Mans-Burden-Efforts-Little/dp/0199226113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275912149&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elusive-Quest-Growth-Economists-Misadventure/dp/0262550423/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275912149&sr=8-3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Easterly

IIRC correctly examples included malarial nets which were handed out for free only to be dumped by the wayside or sold on as bridal face nets. Only when they actually sold the things to people at a small price did anyone use them. Similar problem with condoms - people wouldn't use free contraception (we have the same issue in this country). People like to give charity - but it turns out a lot of people in the 3rd world have a great deal of self respect and do not want handouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Review question - does this aid help British inhabitants? Answer - No = cut to zero.

£7 billion aid would cut 10% off our deficit. Got to be the easiest cut ever.

We are an arms-dealing country but generally prefer to disguise the fact from ourselves. The cynical Yes Minister reader might suggest that this "aid" could go hand in hand with defence contracts and thus provide jobs in the UK. For example, on those ocasions when a sufficiently large brown envelope cannot be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression is that the amount given in aid is so small that maintaining it will give good headlines while costing very little.

Okay - that's not an argument for why it SHOULD be maintained as much as an argument for why it MIGHT be maintained.

You are possibly right, it only costs a few £100m and the foreign office see it as helping etc...... however I have a problem on two fronts. Firstly I think we are far too concerned with "leading the world" and "international policing and peacekeeping" for a nation in this much financial trouble. We have longstanding commonwealth and other regional ties which need to be developed/managed, but I really do feel we are too involved internationally.

Secondly those that say its a small amount of course have a point but where does one draw the line.... for instance break it down further and I understand last year we gave money to both indoa and china for instance and probably brazil for all I know... these are thriving , developing economies....... and on that score I think we are only going to be successful at tackling the deficit if we think about everything HOWEVER SMALL..... for instance in that overseas aid budget the judgement call might be to take out payment to larger growing countries..... well that would have saved a few million .... then you move onto the next.... by the end of the day you might well have saved half a billion without doing any real damage yet.

I am sure there will be hindreds of "smaller" budget pots and all should be examined line by line ... thats how to deliver real efficiency ( as well as of course making some big decisions along the way).

By the by on the balance of probabilities Badgers cause TB in cows ( or at least greatly ocntribute to it)... an innoculation against TB's for badgers exists but we cannot innoculate the cows... the Govt has for years and years spent about £150m per year on payments to farmers for cattle that have been slaughtered due to TB and yet they have not sanctioned either a badger cull or innoculation programme.... we are effectively spending £150m a year funding badger well being... I wonder if thats a priority for many when there are other options including some which don't involve slaughtering badgers......... there are literally hundreds of budgets like this I suspect where decisions need to be made and the savings will just drop out with very little pain ( if any at all)... in this case funding some form of innoculation for badgers would produce longer term savings of roughly £150m per year and a GDP boost as farmers wouldn't have so much down time while animals are slaughtered and herds built up again..... no one ( or animal) loses out.... we cut expenditure and grow tax revenues at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be the best thing to cut because it would not affect UK jobs in any significant way

no party would have the balls to cut it though apart from the BNP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.