Why are we "Ring Fencing" Foreign Aid?

[onyx39]

"Justice, energy and communities are among the departments agreeing to "significant savings", he said, adding that health, schools and foreign aid would be protected from cuts."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22684993

I really do not get why we are exempting Foreign Aid for cuts? I could understand if the money went to the starving in Africa etc, but invariably it goes to countries like India who have very strong economies.

[Pesty]

Because Cameron is a .

[Mattt]

Because thanks to the Bribery Act companies are not allowed to bribe foreign officials anymore, so we need the government to do it for us.

[BevR]

Because many people still believe in soft power, whether or not it actually works is up for debate (some people even debate whether it is soft power or not but thats up to you).

Anyway; a little reading if anyone is interested in the new 0.7% figure:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2012/12chap7.pdf

I didnt realise only 8.3% of our aid is classified as humanitarian aid. Italy has signed up to reach 0.7% while its currently at 0.15%, I can only imagine how well that will go down.

[Dominicc01]

There is no logic to it. And the continuation of this nonsense will lose the Conservatives far more votes than gay marriage or anything else they've done.

[anonymous-user]

The traditional route of awarding contracts to domestic companies in exchange for non-exec directorships at a later date has become a little too obvious. Keep it all 3rd world and the kickbacks are not subject to public scrutiny and can be a lot bigger.

[marcosgt]

We can afford to provide aid to countries that have real need, but countries that have space and nuclear programmes and companies that buy up major UK industries can fk right off, errr put their own houses in order.

M

[anonymous-user]

marcosgt said:

We can afford to provide aid to countries that have real need...

are you sure? the uk has a budget deficit and has done since 2002. all the money you are so wisely giving away you actually have to borrow. bewildering.

[JDRoest]

onyx39 said:

I really do not get why we are exempting Foreign Aid for cuts? I could understand if the money went to the starving in Africa etc, but invariably it goes to countries like India who have very strong economies.

It keeps the BBC/Guardian/Lefties off this Governments back about helping poorer countries.

(Instead it ties them up with the question of who gets the aid and why they get it, which keeps them all busy for months.)

[Asterix]

Mattt said:

Because thanks to the Bribery Act companies are not allowed to bribe foreign officials anymore, so we need the government to do it for us.

Which worked wonders with India recently...

[thehawk]

Mattt said:

Because thanks to the Bribery Act companies are not allowed to bribe foreign officials anymore, so we need the government to do it for us.

I thought that was what local business partners were for

[traxx]

Wasn't it something the Liberals wrote into their agreement with the Conservatives?

[Elroy Blue]

traxx said:

Wasn't it something the Liberals wrote into their agreement with the Conservatives?

No it was Cameron's commitment to appear warm and fluffy and at the same time ensuring his cronies get lots of kick backs.

[oyster]

Elroy Blue said:

traxx said:

Wasn't it something the Liberals wrote into their agreement with the Conservatives?

No it was Cameron's commitment to appear warm and fluffy and at the same time ensuring his cronies get lots of kick backs.

I believe all 3 major parties were in favour of it at the 2010 election, which means it had the support of 80%+ of the electorate.

[ralphrj]

oyster said:

Elroy Blue said:

traxx said:

Wasn't it something the Liberals wrote into their agreement with the Conservatives?

No it was Cameron's commitment to appear warm and fluffy and at the same time ensuring his cronies get lots of kick backs.

I believe all 3 major parties were in favour of it at the 2010 election, which means it had the support of 80%+ of the electorate.

Correct

Conservate manifesto said:

We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of national income in aid

Labour manifesto said:

We remain committed to spending 0.7 per cent of national income on aid from 2013

Libdem manifesto said:

We will meet the UK’s obligations to the developing world by committing to spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on aid

[anonymous-user]

oyster said:

I believe all 3 major parties were in favour of it at the 2010 election, which means it had the support of 80%+ of the electorate.

i'm not sure how you make the logical leap from all 3 parties being in favour to 80% of the electorate being in favour.

all 3 parties were in favour of staying in the EU, i'm fairly certain 80% of the electorate wern't.

[Pesty]

All three parties are against the death penalty

[einsign]

All three parties do not represent the people of the UK.

[ClaphamGT3]

The primary purpose of overseas aid is to provide competitive advantage for UK businesses operating in recipient jurisdictions. National businesses exporting goods and services is a key component of a robust economy, hence most major economies (ie Italy, the US, CIS) prioritise it.

Hardly rocket science.

[Elroy Blue]

Yes, that's worked really well with India lately hasn't it.
And why should taxpayers money be used to fund the dividend payouts of private companies, when our infrastructure is collapsing around us.