UK General Election 2015
Discussion
Esseesse said:
When we joined the EU we were told that this was not allowed, and all foreign aid had to be given in cash.
Categorically untrue, however much people might like to believe it. The attached parliamentary extract (long, boring) warns that expenditure elsewhere is in many cases simply being reclassified as foreign aid to get to the proposed 0.7% target. Front-line diplomacy services, to give one example, make up a chunk of what is classified as foreign aid, and that certainly isn't paid in cash. Peacekeeping costs have also been included in the aid budget.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
longblackcoat said:
Esseesse said:
When we joined the EU we were told that this was not allowed, and all foreign aid had to be given in cash.
Categorically untrue, however much people might like to believe it. The attached parliamentary extract (long, boring) warns that expenditure elsewhere is in many cases simply being reclassified as foreign aid to get to the proposed 0.7% target. Front-line diplomacy services, to give one example, make up a chunk of what is classified as foreign aid, and that certainly isn't paid in cash. Peacekeeping costs have also been included in the aid budget.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 5th February 09:46
Esseesse said:
longblackcoat said:
Esseesse said:
When we joined the EU we were told that this was not allowed, and all foreign aid had to be given in cash.
Categorically untrue, however much people might like to believe it. The attached parliamentary extract (long, boring) warns that expenditure elsewhere is in many cases simply being reclassified as foreign aid to get to the proposed 0.7% target. Front-line diplomacy services, to give one example, make up a chunk of what is classified as foreign aid, and that certainly isn't paid in cash. Peacekeeping costs have also been included in the aid budget.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 5th February 09:46
But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
longblackcoat said:
Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.
But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
Scuffers said:
longblackcoat said:
Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.
But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
longblackcoat said:
Scuffers said:
longblackcoat said:
Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.
But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
UK aid cash helped African dictator buy himself a £30m jet
longblackcoat said:
Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.
But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
Thanks for the reply. I don't think we know conclusively then whether the way aid is dished out has or has not changed since EU, but your explanation about how the total budget is made up of various things (certainly not all cash) is useful to know (and something I was not clued up about).But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
Edited by Esseesse on Thursday 5th February 15:23
Scuffers said:
longblackcoat said:
Scuffers said:
longblackcoat said:
Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.
But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
UK aid cash helped African dictator buy himself a £30m jet
longblackcoat said:
Cheers for that - I wasn't aware. And although I'm firmly committed to foreign aid, and as lefty as you (wouldn't) like, if we've paid for even a part of that, I'd not seek to defend it for an instant. It's the sort of thing that undermines all the good that foreign aid does.
At least it has RR engines so wasn't a total loss 
longblackcoat said:
Cheers for that - I wasn't aware. And although I'm firmly committed to foreign aid, and as lefty as you (wouldn't) like, if we've paid for even a part of that, I'd not seek to defend it for an instant. It's the sort of thing that undermines all the good that foreign aid does.
Look, I am not against the idea of foreign aid, the problem is that we have now is nothing of the sort.Take the Ebola outbreak, we did NOTHING for over 12 months, when if we had, probably could have broken the back of it with a few million (if that).
look at what comic relief get done with a few million a year, or medicine sans frontier, or the red cross.
now look at what we puch what? £13Bn into and tell me it's money well spent?
I have no problem with the idea of ~£1-2Bn being spent on real aid/relief work, and I suspect if it was managed right, it would make a massive difference.
fblm said:
Is there a breakdown anywhere? 13bn should buy quite a lot of food and medicine.
best I can find is this (2013):https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Scuffers said:
longblackcoat said:
Scuffers said:
longblackcoat said:
Genuinely don't know; the basic policy is that the smallest amount possible is given in actual cash, and that instead the aid donor will contract to provide services (schools, running water, that sort of thing), the value of which is counted in the foreign aid budget. Clearly that means spending money in-country, and it's true that there's real problems with corruption in many of the aided countries.
But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
so you're saying they paid for the Gulfstream jets directly then?But the government doesn't just write a cheque to "Impoverished Country In Africa"; they're a bit more clued-up than that.
UK aid cash helped African dictator buy himself a £30m jet
As for a breakdown, there is a on a simpler level this
JustAnotherLogin said:
But all that says is that in the same year we gave £70m of aid to Uganda he bought the jet. Unless I missed it (and I was reading quickly) there is no suggestion we gave the money to him or it was used for that. Now I agree you can argue against giving aid to corrupt countries, but I'm afraid we may not be able to give out much aid if we did.
As for a breakdown, there is a on a simpler level this
take it up with Lord Ashcroft, he established the link (it's in the article).As for a breakdown, there is a on a simpler level this
as for that breakdown, you will note it's only some £4.2Bn, what about the other £9Bn?
On a more general note I think people are more sanguine about the merits of foreign aid but have difficulty dealing with aid to nations who are spending money on things that we, as a nation, have said that basically we cannot afford this.
Of course there may be specific circumstances where the benefit to UK is there, even in such a national situation, but the reasons for the aid aren't clear.
People are also generous in cases of real need. The problem seems to be around fixing a budget which must be spent, viz the recent blowing, let's be honest but it was blowing, a staggering amount simply because it was year end. Just a larger version of what people see councils doing.
There may be significantly less objection if the government said we have a budget of x, and we will spend up to that, but if we don't find sufficient meritorious needs then we will spend under budget. If they'd spent the budget then that was it till next year.
Of course someone will now say, but what happens if it's near the year end, the budget is spent and a massive crisis occurs, e.g. Boxing Day tsunami. Again I think people are adult enough if the Government said that okay we're going to overspend this year but it comes out of next year's budget. It's how real life and real people spending their own money works. The car engine drops a valve and the £2500 repair bill means that the villa holiday in Tuscany turns into a caravan at Filey.
People in the main are far more adult about things than politicians and some posters give them credit.
Of course there may be specific circumstances where the benefit to UK is there, even in such a national situation, but the reasons for the aid aren't clear.
People are also generous in cases of real need. The problem seems to be around fixing a budget which must be spent, viz the recent blowing, let's be honest but it was blowing, a staggering amount simply because it was year end. Just a larger version of what people see councils doing.
There may be significantly less objection if the government said we have a budget of x, and we will spend up to that, but if we don't find sufficient meritorious needs then we will spend under budget. If they'd spent the budget then that was it till next year.
Of course someone will now say, but what happens if it's near the year end, the budget is spent and a massive crisis occurs, e.g. Boxing Day tsunami. Again I think people are adult enough if the Government said that okay we're going to overspend this year but it comes out of next year's budget. It's how real life and real people spending their own money works. The car engine drops a valve and the £2500 repair bill means that the villa holiday in Tuscany turns into a caravan at Filey.
People in the main are far more adult about things than politicians and some posters give them credit.
brenflys777 said:
The outcomes of this election have so many variables UKIP/SNP/LIB DEM that I think the only sure thing is that there is no sure thing. For that reason alone I think tactical voting is not just weak, but possibly pointless. The options for me are easy, vote for the party with the best fit or don't vote.
The outcomes of this election are that either we will have a Tory or Labour led government with either Cameron or Miliband as PM.Nothing else is remotely possible.
Wombat3 said:
brenflys777 said:
The outcomes of this election have so many variables UKIP/SNP/LIB DEM that I think the only sure thing is that there is no sure thing. For that reason alone I think tactical voting is not just weak, but possibly pointless. The options for me are easy, vote for the party with the best fit or don't vote.
The outcomes of this election are that either we will have a Tory or Labour led government with either Cameron or Miliband as PM.Nothing else is remotely possible.
Firstly lots of other results are possible. They may be less likely but not impossible. How many predicted a LibDem coalition with Cameron….
Secondly, the evidence of the last election shows we can't rely on a majority win, and I'd suggest it is perfectly reasonable to say that as we don't have a presidential system, the next PM whilst likely to be the leader of the strongest party may not be the same leader that failed to deliver a win in the election.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff