Sham Cam

How are we going to eradicate world poverty if all developed nations cut their foreign aid to developing countries.

I would be prouder to see help given to vunerable people here, rather than see what they have taken away.
I can't afford to feel proud that we are giving money away to other countries.

I know our foreign aid budget alone won't eradicate world poverty but it is part of a wider effort from all nations of the G20 and EU to try and reduce absolute poverty. I know many countries have gone back on the 0.7% of GDP proposal but I think we should be proud to have kept the committment we've made.

I'm in the minority of supporting the increase in the foreign aid budget, aid is needed in order to eradicate absolute poverty in the world and this as well as being a very charitable gesture also serves our foreign policy objectives such as combatting terrorism and establishing trade links with developing countries which can be used in the future.

males me mad that they can afford to send money abroad when people need help here.
the amount of cuts that are going to affect disabled people is sick.
if we can't afford to look after our own, we sure as hell shouldn't be sending money abroad.

And that's why I'm saying that the highest priority for aid should be contraception and family planning education, in tandem with general health advice, such as basic hygiene.

Yes, I see the logic of your argument, Edam, but it's equally logical to say that if you have, I dunno, £100 per year coming in, and two or three children, you can feed them and keep them innoculated against disease, so they're more likely to survive than if you have ten children, without those basic needs met, of whom five will die or even if they don't die, live a pretty miserable existence.

mumble - that's very harsh. Don't think it's fair or honourable to blame the victim.

People in Ethiopa may not have access to contraception. And if you know half your children will die, it makes sense to try to have a big family so you stand a chance of one or two surviving. Especially in a country with no social security where it's the family that is the building block of society. I don't know much about Ethiopian society, as it happens, which is why I'm not the one condemning people in Ethiopia for being famine victims, but in some societies a person without children is without value and without support.

I agree, Siasl, especially when Aid goes to places like Ethiopia, where population has doubled since Feed the World, yet they're still starving to death. I actually think it's child abuse to bring a child into the world that you can't feed or clothe adequately. Iknow a lot of it is ignorance, but fgs, put the money into family planning!

Ring fencing any area of public expenditure shows inflexibility. Nothing should be sacrosanct at this point. Everything should be looked at on it's merits.

Foreign aid is an aspect of our foreign policy strategy, the same as defence or diplomatic or trade initiatives. If we are willing to cut defence to the bone we should be at least willing to look at cutting foreign aid.

But we are told that they haven't got the money, so they have to make cuts. But it is significant that the cuts "have to fall" on our disabled people, but an increase can be made for foreign aid, and it is significant that the Guardianistas don't ask any questions about that.

I don't think it's a case of one or the other, I think foreign aid should be ringfenced, just as I think that money for respite, DLA etc should be ringfenced.

Nobody is giving us a choice between them, I would rather see at least one of them ring fenced instead of both of them cut.

We know that they all pretend to care about the domestic when election time rolls around, in order to drum up votes. But after the election has been won, manifesto promises are often shredded and it is business as usual until the next election comes round.

Agree that there will be no complaints from the Guardianistas about an increase in foreign aid, because their pririties are not with our disabled people.

The TUC apparently get money from the foreign aid budget

www.policynetwork.net/accountability/media/tuc-gets-millions-government-foreign-aid-pot

and even a Guardian journalist says

"There is increasing recognition that whether they like it or not, humanitarians are part of a political game: "The point is to manage their role in it such that they can uphold the interests of the victims." In fact, many aid agencies, such as Médecins Sans Frontières now accept that "humanitarian assistance is not a de-politicised act of charity".

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/17/north-korea-aid

The left won't complain because ordinary people here are not a priority for them. They have bigger fish to fry internationally.
It is the right-wing UKIP that is against it.

Of course they care more about domestic, that is what gets them votes, however narrowing it down even further they care more about populist domestic policy.

The Conservatives absolutely don't care about disabled people, if they did, they would find the money but don't make it about them ring-fencing foreign aid. All you (and by you I mean the press and general public, not just you) is just giving them the green light to make MORE cuts. That money won't go on making anything else better.

'Ring fencing foreign aid isn't an easy choice for any politicians, typically politicians only really care about domestic policy because that is what wins them both. They're ring fencing foreign aid because it's our duty and obligation to these countries.'

I think the opposite. I don't think they care about the domestic. There are still people in Hull who are not back in their homes after the floods several years ago. The cuts to our disabled people don't show concern for domestic. We know that some aid is used for political purposes and we sometimes earn back in consultancy etc. a lot of what we spend in aid. I think it is interesting that all parties are in agreement about not cutting foreign aid, except for parties like UKIP, who believe in trade not aid. I think it is relevant what other countries such as the US and Sweden do, because it shows that the signing of these international commitments is not paramount and can be overridden in emergencies such as the financial crisis that we are now in. Money does exist and can be found to support the disabled if they wanted to. Where did they find the money to help bail out Ireland?

claig to be fair, they didn't HAVE to make any cuts to services for disabled children, they chose to. There is ideology at play here, not just £££.

I was 100% behind the child benefit cut, it was outrageous that it was constantly defended. Boo hoo, poor middle class people losing a little bit of money.

Comparing here with Germany is comparing apples and oranges, they pay for healthcare, if cancer patients pay/have insurance then of course they get the best treatments! However, the NHS can't fund treatments that don't have proven return on investment.

Ring fencing foreign aid isn't an easy choice for any politicians, typically politicians only really care about domestic policy because that is what wins them both. They're ring fencing foreign aid because it's our duty and obligation to these countries. What the US and Sweden are doing is totally irrelevant.

cikals - so when the tories shit on their own it's a big deal, but when they shit on the vulnerable people everyone knew they would shit on it's less of a big deal because they don't matter/weren't tories anyway? Nice.

Not saying that you necessarily agree with that analysis mind, but it's still a pretty unpleasant slant all the same. I don't give a rat's arse about how "politically significant" it is that people who earn more than twice the national average salary will get child benefit cut. Yes, it's the first universal benefit to go. But frankly, the poor and disabled are being shat on twice as hard and it's a national disgrace that people don't give a damn.

I think the child benefit cut has been talked about so much because it was so politically significant. It was before the CSR and it was an early indicator of what was to come as well as it being seen as the tories making cuts which hurt their support.