Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

I would love someone to define to me what 'we look after our own first' means??

178 replies

SnipeBird · 07/01/2017 22:07

Whenever I have political or brexit driven discussions this is a constant arguement thrown back at me - and genuinely I'd love to know what it means? Does it mean those who pay taxes here (includes people here and abroad, but not those on benefits maybe?), does it mean if you live here (all expats are out then), does it mean if you're British? (What does that mean? I'm half English, half German?), does it mean if you have a passport (well my 2yr old ds is out?)
What does it actually mean, who are 'our own'?

OP posts:
WaitrosePigeon · 07/01/2017 22:50

It means look after British Citizens or British Nationals before anyone else.

Astro55 · 07/01/2017 22:51

I've only really heard the phase when someone has been lacking in basic care - for example an old lady desperate for an operation or a child needing help walking -

so yes health tourism would come into it - (The issue there being a U.K. National would have to pay for treatment abroad)

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 07/01/2017 22:51

I think its self explanatory.
We're not saying we won't help others but Our own come first. Eg You wouldn't take food out of your own child's mouth to feed say a neighbours child. No matter how unfortunate they were.

HerOtherHalf · 07/01/2017 22:52

Honestly manumission, no, I don't believe i have. At least not enough to be statistically significant.

Manumission · 07/01/2017 22:53

Yes Astro that's the type of thing I'm thinking of too. And about spending priorities not immigration policy or anything like that.

But of course, AFAIK, i don't know any extreme right wingers so I don't have a balanced sample.

DontTouchTheMoustache · 07/01/2017 22:54

It's the kind of shite spouted by the same people who chant "make Britain great again" without the slightest understanding of how politics or economics work and actually mean they don't like "foreigners"

PausingFlatly · 07/01/2017 22:55

The Daily Mash has it: We need to look after our own first, say people who would never help anyone

Manumission · 07/01/2017 22:56

Well you can easily imagine the marines saying it can't you her? Or some other club, group, regiment etc? And even then it could be said in either a comradely or sinister way.

So the meaning must be context )and tone) dependent.

Astro55 · 07/01/2017 23:04

You wouldn't take food out of your own child's mouth to feed say a neighbours child

This really depends on economics - if you have plenty and are well off - you wouldn't mind helping another less fortunate

However if you are pot and have very little and just enough to survive - you would want to keep what you had to survive

Scale that up and you have a country where there are homeless people. People on the breadline, the elderly without proper care children in desperate need and you wonder where all the money goes?

Manumission · 07/01/2017 23:06

Yes. I think the massive rise in inequality has contributed to this kind of thinking.

HerOtherHalf · 07/01/2017 23:07

Which marines are you talking about manumission? Royal or USMC? If the latter then we are operating in complerely different contexts.

Manumission · 07/01/2017 23:14

Any group her. And a person's focus matter to. It would be a pretty perfect psychology experiment to discuss with subjects the case of the homeless ex serviceman or the isolated old lady down the road for 15 minutes and ask them which if a list of sound bites they agree with.

Then repeat with the cases of a child refugee and a talented economist immigrant.

Many people's responses would shift to prioritise the plight of whichever group they'd just been discussing.

Manumission · 07/01/2017 23:15

matters ^

HerOtherHalf · 07/01/2017 23:31

You are right manu. However, the reality is the phrase in question is a very popular soundbite for xenophobic nationalists in the UK. Personally, i think it is a worthless statement that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think we should value all human life equally and aim to help those most in need, regardless of race, demographic or regiment. Let's be honest though, if we are really talking about charity we are all hypocrites, except those who admit to not giving a shit.

Olivia777 · 07/01/2017 23:48

Her , what do you mean by 'we are all hypocrites'?
and who is most in need in your eyes?

SpartacusWoman · 07/01/2017 23:51

Ive not heard in said re brexit and thought it was another way of saying "charity begins at home"

I think FIL said it recently when something on the news mentioned something about cuts to mental health services and the amount of foreign aid we pay out (the news didn't link them btw, it was just two different news items on within a few mins if each other and he said "we need to look after out own first, how can we send so much abroad when we have people going hungry, homeless and often dying in this country because the government say they need to cut services due to no money"

TheHouseOfIllRepute · 07/01/2017 23:59

It's a local shop for local people

TaylorP1234 · 08/01/2017 00:13

My Mother said this when she waited years for a cataract operation and nearly went blind. We had to pay for her to have them done private in the end! She had never in 90 years claimed any benefit always worked her arse off to feed her kids!! This is an instance where we should look after our own. Our own Being anyone who has lived in and contributed to the country! It's not racist at all

scottishdiem · 08/01/2017 00:18

Its an interesting expression that fails to recognise some basic facts.

Our aid budget is £12.2bn. It sounds a lot to be sure but its only 0.7% of the overall UK budget. It gets spent on a variety of things. Such as fighting the recent outbreak of Ebola. If we dont want to help that type of thing we will soon find it here as an outbreak in the UK - then the cost will be a lot higher. Why not spend money at the source and, as a result, spend less overall?

Or the money we spent on the borders of Syria providing refugee assistance. The UK approach to that humanitarian crisis was to provide support as near as possible to the source of the problem. Since this country has an epic thing against migrants it is a sound policy decision rather than letting them come here to escape war.

We spend money in countries that would benefit from what we would call capacity building and support. The country that benefits most from our aid is Pakistan. On one hand that seems odd in a country with a large military and nuclear weapons. But its also a country that could easily become a much bigger Afghanistan so we try to use the soft power of aid to stop that kind of thing. We gave money to Ethiopia for a similar reason after its war. India and China no longer receive direct aid.

We also use that budget to pay for things like the UN WHO which, again, addresses things like health and disease control which helps stop them coming here.

Yes there are people in this country who are desperate for help. Yes there are shortages of staff and services. But anyone who things that £12bn will fix them is not paying attention. Its 0.7% of our budget. Which single problem will that really fix? At best, it might stop something get worse for a bit but what would be chosen and why? Our politics creates these problems. Our votes creates these problems. We have elected people that do not care so spend money in ways that draw funds away from the needy in society through low taxation for all, easily managed corporate tax bills and a failure to invest in the future.

albertcampionscat · 08/01/2017 00:24

We wouldn't be human and wouldn't be able to cope with life if we didn't care more for those close to us: if we were as heartbroken by the death of a stranger as we are by the death of a loved one we'd spend our lives in tears.

You can, I think, take that a step further and say that almost everyone is more affected by things that happen to people who feel similar because they have similar experiences - so most posters to this board will have been more upset by the terror attacks in Paris than by massacres in Nigeria.

So far so reasonable, or at least so understandable, but the phrase tends to be used by people who don't care at all for those beyond their immediate circle and/or of the same race and nationality as them.

There's an additional layer of nastiness too, where it's not just that you don't have the same emotional response when it's people different from you, you actively want to hurt them or at least resent any help going to them. The glee you see sometimes about cutting aid money fits in that category.

gillybeanz · 08/01/2017 00:25

I say this when a charity person jumps out at me in town, I don't like it.
If I want to give to charity I choose my own, the rest of the time I can't afford it as "we look after our own first"
I'm sure this is what others mean in relation to the subject at hand.
It doesn't make them racist or me uncharitable, I just can't afford to give to them all.

mimishimmi · 08/01/2017 20:44

Yeah, well they didn't did they - knocked off millions of us in world war after world war then whinge about having to import immigrant to be the slaves they intended us to be...

user1471545174 · 08/01/2017 20:50

Who are "they"? Confused

mimishimmi · 08/01/2017 20:52

CFR, Bilderberg crew..

albertcampionscat · 10/01/2017 00:03

Oh dear.