Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Cameron: UK has a 'moral obligation' to help world's poor

  1. #1
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default Cameron: UK has a 'moral obligation' to help world's poor

    Cameron: UK has a 'moral obligation' to help world's poor

    The Prime Minister acknowledged that the Coalition’s commitment to spending 0.7 per cent of GDP on overseas aid was not a popular policy. Development spending will rise next year from 8.7 billion to 11.3 billion as a result of the promise.

    But he insisted that the British people were “incredibly generous” and appealed to the nation’s “heart” to help alleviate poverty in the developing world.
    11 Billion a year. In a recession. I know no one (online or in real life) who supports increased funding for international aid.

    The only way I can explain it is that Cameron is trying to de-nasty the nasty party . . this policy, along with others like gay marriage, is an attempt to make them seem more human and loving . . . but even "lefties" like myself think it's a stupid thing to do IN A RECESSION! Agh, it annoys me

    I'm not fan of the EU, but at least their are tangible benefits for the billions we send them . .
    Last edited by Rook; 12-28-2012 at 12:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    And 11 billion wouldn't alleviate the hardship of the those forced below subsistence levels? The rate of people who have turned to food aid has, since the Tories have taken over, risen sharply, so that "from April to September nearly 110,000 adults and children were referred for emergency help by professionals such as the police, social workers and job centre advisors and GPs." It is equally estimated this figure will double over the next 12 months, therefore indicating the rate of endemic poverty is rising dramatically. So the logic of providing for the foreign poor, if that is where the money is going, before our own poor, is nonsensical.

    But this priority is itself subject to the rough axe of austerity, dropping 0.1% from previous contributions. But despite the savings I think this Aid is more indicative of what it prevents rather than what it promotes. Despite the Nation having a "heart" amid this time of severe austerity the British population, not the government, are "incredibly generous"; David must have a severe case of the lowest form of wit and makes his abject apology to those who died at Hillsborough all the more incredulous.

    So what do we get for our money? Well, such investment must yield positive results, and Cameron certainly has an eye on the future, as he signed off the cheque: "Aid also helps prevent countries collapsing, causing Britain "problems of mass migration, pandemics and climate change"" So as we can see, this Aid is actually an investment in the future of population control, not population growth.

    In contrast, with rising rents, taxation, fuel and prices it is indicated those who are struggling on the margins of poverty will sacrifice food to meet other obligations: "Chris Mould said that while they weren't reaching as many old people as they should be, travel and rent increases and the dire state of the youth employment market had left many of the UK's young adults in a desperate state with little financial resilience." How well we move forwards by travelling ever backwards.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    410

    Default

    I often wonder how much of this so-called overseas aid goes into the front door of the IMF and then out of its back door to the ECB to save the effing euro?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •