0.7% (foreign aid)

24

Comments

  • Telford wrote: »
    You make good points. I guess that the two main benefits would be to provode employment and to provide us with a well trained, experienced, disciplined and flexible armed services who are able to do a job for us home and abread.

    Fighting a war might well do those things, but they'd be pretty shitty reasons to go to war.

    Sometimes you go to war because you are attacked
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

    If it's an act of parliament then it's parliament that has to change the law, not the government.

    This is a fairly fundamental aspect of how separation of powers works.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    But the defence budget is for our benefit. Foreign aid is for the benefit of others.

    Bzzt. Wrong.

    Foreign aid is for your own benefit, however indirectly. The fact is, making the rest of the world a better to place to live is in the interest of wealthier countries.

    Don't want refugees knocking on your door? Do something about the situations that make them refugees in the first place. Don't want terrorism? Do something about the factors that generate terrorism.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    You make good points. I guess that the two main benefits would be to provide employment and to provide us with a well trained, experienced, disciplined and flexible armed services who are able to do a job for us home and abroad.
    Going to war so as to make job opportunities for unemployed young men and people who work in armament factories or as a training exercise for your own troops are sufficiently far outside the parameters of just war theory to those that send them, and possibly those that are sent, at risk of being war criminals.

  • orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

    If it's an act of parliament then it's parliament that has to change the law, not the government.

    This is a fairly fundamental aspect of how separation of powers works.
    You are being pedantic. Legislation is passed by Parliament but invariably introduced by the government of the day.
    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    But the defence budget is for our benefit. Foreign aid is for the benefit of others.

    Bzzt. Wrong.

    Foreign aid is for your own benefit, however indirectly. The fact is, making the rest of the world a better to place to live is in the interest of wealthier countries.

    Don't want refugees knocking on your door? Do something about the situations that make them refugees in the first place. Don't want terrorism? Do something about the factors that generate terrorism.
    If what you say is true, it doesn't appear to be working very well. If you are rich enough to be able to give so much away, a refugee would regard your country as the place to go to, hrnce all the boats in the channel.
    Enoch wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You make good points. I guess that the two main benefits would be to provide employment and to provide us with a well trained, experienced, disciplined and flexible armed services who are able to do a job for us home and abroad.
    Going to war so as to make job opportunities for unemployed young men and people who work in armament factories or as a training exercise for your own troops are sufficiently far outside the parameters of just war theory to those that send them, and possibly those that are sent, at risk of being war criminals.
    The post you quoted is not about going to war. It was an answer to the question about why we have an armed service

  • orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

    If it's an act of parliament then it's parliament that has to change the law, not the government.

    This is a fairly fundamental aspect of how separation of powers works.

    We don't have separation of the executive and legislature in the UK. Judicial independence, yes, but not separation of powers. Maybe you're thinking of Parliamentary Sovereignty? In any case when the government of the day has an 80 seat majority what the government want and what parliament want as concerns finance (i.e. not subject to significant delay from the Lords) are more or less indistinguishable.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    You are being pedantic. Legislation is passed by Parliament but invariably introduced by the government of the day.
    1) You are in absolutely no position to complain about other people being pedantic. Take the plank out of your own eye first.
    2) It is not invariable. There are private members' bills. Wikipedia has a list of private members' bills that have recently become legislation.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Personally I would prefer all foreign aid go directly to charities in the area where the aid is needed.

    Bearing in mind that this is taxpayers' money, how would you set about monitoring how it is spent and assessing the results achieved?

    I would not be in a position to do any of this work.

    I know - and I suspect that you do as well - that this is an inadequate answer to my question.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    2) It is not invariable. There are private members' bills. Wikipedia has a list of private members' bills that have recently become legislation.

    When was the last one that didn't have government support?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You are being pedantic. Legislation is passed by Parliament but invariably introduced by the government of the day.
    1) You are in absolutely no position to complain about other people being pedantic. Take the plank out of your own eye first.
    2) It is not invariable. There are private members' bills. Wikipedia has a list of private members' bills that have recently become legislation.
    It was not a complaint. It was a comment and I am allowed to make comments. I was, of course, refering to the majority of legislation.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

    If it's an act of parliament then it's parliament that has to change the law, not the government.

    This is a fairly fundamental aspect of how separation of powers works.
    You are being pedantic. Legislation is passed by Parliament but invariably introduced by the government of the day.

    I'm not being pedantic, I'm trying to point out to you that introducing legislation and PASSING legislation are not the same thing.

    Brexit should've made the distinction pretty obvious. It's one thing for a government to want to change the law. But actually changing the law? That's a whole other question. And a government that wants to change the 0.7% law is in no way guaranteed that parliament will agree to do so.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

    If it's an act of parliament then it's parliament that has to change the law, not the government.

    This is a fairly fundamental aspect of how separation of powers works.

    We don't have separation of the executive and legislature in the UK. Judicial independence, yes, but not separation of powers. Maybe you're thinking of Parliamentary Sovereignty? In any case when the government of the day has an 80 seat majority what the government want and what parliament want as concerns finance (i.e. not subject to significant delay from the Lords) are more or less indistinguishable.

    The fact that the executive sits in the legislature merely means that you have partial separation rather than full separation. It still remains the case that when the same person is both a Minister and an MP, their powers and abilities are quite different depending on which hat they're wearing.

    "Parliamentary Sovereignty" is merely an expression of one aspect of separation of powers, that it's the legislature rather than the executive that starts with the power to make the laws that the executive is going to have to obey (along with everyone else).

    I live in a country that uses the same model, and I feel quite comfortable in telling you that lawyers talk about separation of powers all the time.

    As to what the House of Lords might defer on in your system of appointment rather than election, I can't really comment on beyond being aware that the government does not always get what the government wants. Maybe it's different in 'finance'.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    2) It is not invariable. There are private members' bills. Wikipedia has a list of private members' bills that have recently become legislation.
    When was the last one that didn't have government support?
    I don't follow things closely enough. It's true that a private members bill to which the government is opposed is highly unlikely to succeed. Some at least were introduced by opposition MPs, such as Eilidh Whiteford's anti-domestic violence bill: I think political commentators distinguish between bills that the government is supporting enthusiastically and bills that it's only supporting because the optics of not supporting them would be bad.

    In any case I was taking issue with Telford's claim that legislation is invariably introduced by government not invariably supported by government.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate



    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

    If it's an act of parliament then it's parliament that has to change the law, not the government.

    This is a fairly fundamental aspect of how separation of powers works.

    We don't have separation of the executive and legislature in the UK. Judicial independence, yes, but not separation of powers. Maybe you're thinking of Parliamentary Sovereignty? In any case when the government of the day has an 80 seat majority what the government want and what parliament want as concerns finance (i.e. not subject to significant delay from the Lords) are more or less indistinguishable.

    I'm not sure exactly what the 1911 legislation provided, but it does provide severe limitations on the power of the House of Lords (that continuing anachronism) even to delay money Bills let alone reject them. And there's a real separation of powers between Parliament and the executive. The executive cannot pass, amend or repeal legislation; if an Act allows, it may introduce delegated legislation (eg regulations), then amend or repeal that. That's the sort of distinction Orfeo is making and which Telford seems not to understand.
  • Gee D wrote: »


    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

    If it's an act of parliament then it's parliament that has to change the law, not the government.

    This is a fairly fundamental aspect of how separation of powers works.

    We don't have separation of the executive and legislature in the UK. Judicial independence, yes, but not separation of powers. Maybe you're thinking of Parliamentary Sovereignty? In any case when the government of the day has an 80 seat majority what the government want and what parliament want as concerns finance (i.e. not subject to significant delay from the Lords) are more or less indistinguishable.

    I'm not sure exactly what the 1911 legislation provided, but it does provide severe limitations on the power of the House of Lords (that continuing anachronism) even to delay money Bills let alone reject them. And there's a real separation of powers between Parliament and the executive. The executive cannot pass, amend or repeal legislation; if an Act allows, it may introduce delegated legislation (eg regulations), then amend or repeal that. That's the sort of distinction Orfeo is making and which Telford seems not to understand.

    "Money" bills can only be delayed by the Lords for up to a month. That makes the passage of money bills a foregone conclusion in the current parliament, which is why quibbling about a supposed separation of powers is an irrelevance here.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thank you for your advice about the present powers of the :Lords on money bills. It may be of little importance in one sense to pick Telford up on the error, but overall, if you keep your thinking straight, you're more likely to arrive at a supportable solution. Telford's just not going to get there continuing along the present path.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Thank you for your advice about the present powers of the :Lords on money bills. It may be of little importance in one sense to pick Telford up on the error, but overall, if you keep your thinking straight, you're more likely to arrive at a supportable solution. Telford's just not going to get there continuing along the present path.

    While I enjoy being technically correct as much as the next man, Telford's point is correct - if the present government so desires there would be little to stop them changing the law to bypass the 0.7% rule. Not for nothing is the UK government referred to as an "elective dictatorship".
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    As I understand it, 'separation of powers' is a doctrine posed in the eighteenth century by French philosophers so as to criticise their own political system. It's a convenient term to use provided it's not taken too dogmatically. There's nothing inherently more virtuous in it that isn't better expressed by 'no man or woman shall be judge in his or her own cause'.

    It was adopted by the founders of the US as the framework of their constitution but has left that constitution with what appear to be several major flaws in the eyes of people in those parts of the world that don't have the same system.

    The way Westminster constitutions work is quite different. The government sits in the legislature, is accountable to it, and has either to control it or be controlled by it. That isn't separation of powers. It isn't even "an expression of one aspect of separation of powers". It has different flaws from the US model but to many non-USians appears also to offer several benefits over it.

    One of it's major disbenefits is that if a government has a large majority and can control its own members effectively, it is, in effect, an elective dictatorship.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Gee D wrote: »


    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

    If it's an act of parliament then it's parliament that has to change the law, not the government.

    This is a fairly fundamental aspect of how separation of powers works.

    We don't have separation of the executive and legislature in the UK. Judicial independence, yes, but not separation of powers. Maybe you're thinking of Parliamentary Sovereignty? In any case when the government of the day has an 80 seat majority what the government want and what parliament want as concerns finance (i.e. not subject to significant delay from the Lords) are more or less indistinguishable.

    I'm not sure exactly what the 1911 legislation provided, but it does provide severe limitations on the power of the House of Lords (that continuing anachronism) even to delay money Bills let alone reject them. And there's a real separation of powers between Parliament and the executive. The executive cannot pass, amend or repeal legislation; if an Act allows, it may introduce delegated legislation (eg regulations), then amend or repeal that. That's the sort of distinction Orfeo is making and which Telford seems not to understand.

    "Money" bills can only be delayed by the Lords for up to a month. That makes the passage of money bills a foregone conclusion in the current parliament, which is why quibbling about a supposed separation of powers is an irrelevance here.

    What counts as a "money" bill?

    We're not directly talking about an appropriation here. We're actually talking about legislation that puts some rules around appropriations. Ironically, much like the legislation that says the Lords can't stop appropriations.

    So if the government wants a budget that doesn't reach the 0.7% figure, okay fine. I'm not sure that means that if the government wants to change the rule that says they ought to reach 0.7%, that's just as much a money bill.

    If it is a "money" bill, then that just makes it completely worthless.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »


    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

    If it's an act of parliament then it's parliament that has to change the law, not the government.

    This is a fairly fundamental aspect of how separation of powers works.

    We don't have separation of the executive and legislature in the UK. Judicial independence, yes, but not separation of powers. Maybe you're thinking of Parliamentary Sovereignty? In any case when the government of the day has an 80 seat majority what the government want and what parliament want as concerns finance (i.e. not subject to significant delay from the Lords) are more or less indistinguishable.

    I'm not sure exactly what the 1911 legislation provided, but it does provide severe limitations on the power of the House of Lords (that continuing anachronism) even to delay money Bills let alone reject them. And there's a real separation of powers between Parliament and the executive. The executive cannot pass, amend or repeal legislation; if an Act allows, it may introduce delegated legislation (eg regulations), then amend or repeal that. That's the sort of distinction Orfeo is making and which Telford seems not to understand.

    "Money" bills can only be delayed by the Lords for up to a month. That makes the passage of money bills a foregone conclusion in the current parliament, which is why quibbling about a supposed separation of powers is an irrelevance here.

    What counts as a "money" bill?

    We're not directly talking about an appropriation here. We're actually talking about legislation that puts some rules around appropriations. Ironically, much like the legislation that says the Lords can't stop appropriations.

    So if the government wants a budget that doesn't reach the 0.7% figure, okay fine. I'm not sure that means that if the government wants to change the rule that says they ought to reach 0.7%, that's just as much a money bill.

    If it is a "money" bill, then that just makes it completely worthless.

    A money bill is whatever the speaker says it is. Realistically it's hard to argue that a law governing how much to spend on something isn't a "money" bill. And yes, it was pointed out that this law was worthless when it was passed.
  • And, now they've gone and made the UK a whole lot smaller and meaner on the world stage (which is, of course, par for the course for this government - the whole intention of Brexit is to make the UK smaller and less important in the world). Confirmation that the UK government will cut foreign age to 0.5%, taking about £5b from the most needy.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    A tory minister with a vestigial principle has resigned in protest.
  • And, now they've gone and made the UK a whole lot smaller and meaner on the world stage (which is, of course, par for the course for this government - the whole intention of Brexit is to make the UK smaller and less important in the world). Confirmation that the UK government will cut foreign age to 0.5%, taking about £5b from the most needy.

    The facts, as explained by the Chancellor, are that most developed countries will still be paying less than the UK.

  • Race to the bottom?
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    And, now they've gone and made the UK a whole lot smaller and meaner on the world stage (which is, of course, par for the course for this government - the whole intention of Brexit is to make the UK smaller and less important in the world). Confirmation that the UK government will cut foreign age to 0.5%, taking about £5b from the most needy.

    The facts, as explained by the Chancellor, are that most developed countries will still be paying less than the UK.

    An argument for competition rather than principle.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    The facts, as explained by the Chancellor, are that most developed countries will still be paying less than the UK.
    Just because most developed countries aren't doing their duty doesn't make it right for us not to do ours. It is worse in that we had given our word that we would do our duty and therefore people thought they could rely on British promises.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The facts, as explained by the Chancellor, are that most developed countries will still be paying less than the UK.
    Just because most developed countries aren't doing their duty doesn't make it right for us not to do ours. It is worse in that we had given our word that we would do our duty and therefore people thought they could rely on British promises.

    We still give more than any other country in Europe apart from Germany and we have to borrow the money to be able to give it away.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The facts, as explained by the Chancellor, are that most developed countries will still be paying less than the UK.
    Just because most developed countries aren't doing their duty doesn't make it right for us not to do ours. It is worse in that we had given our word that we would do our duty and therefore people thought they could rely on British promises.

    We still give more than any other country in Europe apart from Germany and we have to borrow the money to be able to give it away.
    As has been said, it's an irrelevant argument. We're a rich nation, even after the costs of the pandemic and the self inflicted cost of Brexit. We can afford to be generous to those in need and take out loans as needed to invest in our future or cover the unexpected.

    If we take the discredited argument that a national economy is similar to a household, much beloved by many Conservatives of recent years, then we can see that even there the "borrow to give away" is false. Many of us give away some of our income to causes that we consider to be good, Brits are generally recognised as being big supporters of charities - the UK government does the same, with 0.7% being a very small portion of our income whereas many individuals will give a far larger portion of their income (some may even practice tithing and give away 10%, most less than that but a few % wouldn't be unusual). And, even as we give away some of our income to charity we still buy our groceries on a credit card, take out a loan to buy a new car and a mortgage to buy a house. Why is it so hard to imagine giving away some of our income and at the same time taking out loans to cover other expenses when most of us do that all the time?
  • And, you won't be surprised to find that there's a petition to reverse the decision, and maintain the 0.7%
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    We still give more than any other country in Europe apart from Germany and we have to borrow the money to be able to give it away.
    Why do you think that the money we're giving away is the money we borrow? If it's a firm commitment then it comes out of the budget first and the money we borrow goes on things that are more discretionary like paying for Brexit.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The facts, as explained by the Chancellor, are that most developed countries will still be paying less than the UK.
    Just because most developed countries aren't doing their duty doesn't make it right for us not to do ours. It is worse in that we had given our word that we would do our duty and therefore people thought they could rely on British promises.

    We still give more than any other country in Europe apart from Germany and we have to borrow the money to be able to give it away.

    By that argument no-one with a mortgage should ever give to charity.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The facts, as explained by the Chancellor, are that most developed countries will still be paying less than the UK.
    Just because most developed countries aren't doing their duty doesn't make it right for us not to do ours. It is worse in that we had given our word that we would do our duty and therefore people thought they could rely on British promises.

    We still give more than any other country in Europe apart from Germany and we have to borrow the money to be able to give it away.

    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The facts, as explained by the Chancellor, are that most developed countries will still be paying less than the UK.
    Just because most developed countries aren't doing their duty doesn't make it right for us not to do ours. It is worse in that we had given our word that we would do our duty and therefore people thought they could rely on British promises.

    We still give more than any other country in Europe apart from Germany and we have to borrow the money to be able to give it away.
    As has been said, it's an irrelevant argument. We're a rich nation, even after the costs of the pandemic and the self inflicted cost of Brexit. We can afford to be generous to those in need and take out loans as needed to invest in our future or cover the unexpected.

    If we take the discredited argument that a national economy is similar to a household, much beloved by many Conservatives of recent years, then we can see that even there the "borrow to give away" is false. Many of us give away some of our income to causes that we consider to be good, Brits are generally recognised as being big supporters of charities - the UK government does the same, with 0.7% being a very small portion of our income whereas many individuals will give a far larger portion of their income (some may even practice tithing and give away 10%, most less than that but a few % wouldn't be unusual). And, even as we give away some of our income to charity we still buy our groceries on a credit card, take out a loan to buy a new car and a mortgage to buy a house. Why is it so hard to imagine giving away some of our income and at the same time taking out loans to cover other expenses when most of us do that all the time?

    How do you explain why the decision is so popular in the country ?
    And, you won't be surprised to find that there's a petition to reverse the decision, and maintain the 0.7%
    Fair enough. Can we assume that all those who don't support the petition don't support keeping it at 0.7% or do we need an alternative petition.
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    We still give more than any other country in Europe apart from Germany and we have to borrow the money to be able to give it away.
    Why do you think that the money we're giving away is the money we borrow? If it's a firm commitment then it comes out of the budget first and the money we borrow goes on things that are more discretionary like paying for Brexit.
    The amount we borrow covers everything.

    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The facts, as explained by the Chancellor, are that most developed countries will still be paying less than the UK.
    Just because most developed countries aren't doing their duty doesn't make it right for us not to do ours. It is worse in that we had given our word that we would do our duty and therefore people thought they could rely on British promises.

    We still give more than any other country in Europe apart from Germany and we have to borrow the money to be able to give it away.

    By that argument no-one with a mortgage should ever give to charity.
    I disagree. People tend to give to charity out of money they have left after paying the mortgage and all their other committments.

    Fixed quoting error, I hope. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    By that argument no-one with a mortgage should ever give to charity.
    I disagree. People tend to give to charity out of money they have left after paying the mortgage and all their other committments.

    People with a mortgage go into debt to pay for their house. At the same time, they support whatever charitable causes they support.

    The government goes into debt to finance capital projects / cause economic growth via countercyclic spending / reduce taxes / whatever. At the same time ...?
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    By that argument no-one with a mortgage should ever give to charity.
    I disagree. People tend to give to charity out of money they have left after paying the mortgage and all their other committments.

    People with a mortgage go into debt to pay for their house. At the same time, they support whatever charitable causes they support.

    The government goes into debt to finance capital projects / cause economic growth via countercyclic spending / reduce taxes / whatever. At the same time ...?

    The current masive increase in debt is all about the cost of covid 19. Things like Furlough payments

  • Telford wrote: »
    How do you explain why the decision is so popular in the country ?
    Is there evidence of it's popularity? There's a lot of reports of various people coming out and saying they disagree - politicians not in government (including one who had been in government but resigned over this), the Archbishop of Canterbury and other religious leaders, assorted celebrities (because, the media do tend to like getting quotes from celebrities, though they're rarely better informed than the general public).
    And, you won't be surprised to find that there's a petition to reverse the decision, and maintain the 0.7%
    Fair enough. Can we assume that all those who don't support the petition don't support keeping it at 0.7% or do we need an alternative petition.
    The way petitions work is that they get signatures from those who support it. People who don't sign a petition fall into at least three other categories: those who don't support it, those who never even saw the petition and didn't get the chance to sign, those who don't bother because their experience is that politicians will simply ignore it. Anyone can start a petition (for the UK Parliament system you need to be a registered voter for the UK Parliament, and you need a few other people to second the petition, write a wee bit of text explaining what you want and Robert's your mother's brother), if you feel strongly enough about not helping the poor you can start an alternative petition. There may be more than one petition calling for maintaining the 0.7%, that happened to be the one that I found with the search function (if there hadn't been one I was considering asking members at our branch meeting last night to support me in starting one), there may already be a petition supporting the government decision to cut it (I'm not going to go and look for it).

  • And, you won't be surprised to find that there's a petition to reverse the decision, and maintain the 0.7%

    Thank you. I have signed.
  • As have I.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020

    I certainly do want to help the poor and I use my own money, not the money of others

  • As have I.

    I have signed too.
  • Telford wrote: »
    I certainly do want to help the poor and I use my own money, not the money of others

    Ah, the pipedream of the libertarian - saving the world through the whim of the generous doner.

    We tried that. Dickens set his writings in the dystopian and yet historically real result.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I certainly do want to help the poor and I use my own money, not the money of others

    Ah, the pipedream of the libertarian - saving the world through the whim of the generous doner.

    We tried that. Dickens set his writings in the dystopian and yet historically real result.

    I can't claim to save the world.

  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I certainly do want to help the poor and I use my own money, not the money of others

    Ah, the pipedream of the libertarian - saving the world through the whim of the generous doner.

    We tried that. Dickens set his writings in the dystopian and yet historically real result.

    I can't claim to save the world.

    No, but if we work together in a co-ordinated and planned way we can make things better.

    If we depend on private charity history and experience tells us the main thing we'll really make a difference to is our consciences.
  • Individuals giving their money (and often time in fundraising) have a place in international development - the projects funded make a small difference, addressing small but manageable local needs (for a school room, a well for clean water and the like), but these funding sources are generally small and thus unable to really address the big systemic issues. Where they can often have a big impact is where they can fund small but long term involvement - putting people into a community for the long term, much as missionaries would have once served, with relevant skills that community needs but lacks (someone with medical background, a skilled teacher or the like). But, by far the biggest impact of personal individual giving is on the donor and their community - the act of giving and fund raising is a means of informing people in wealthy nations about the conditions in other parts of the world, and the pressure we can then put on our governments and the businesses who enjoy our custom to step in and give the sort of help that's needed to actually change things, to treat the causes of poverty rather than just the symptoms; an example could be the pressure on supermarkets to stock Fair Trade.

    As @KarlLB said, serious development rather than just aid would seek to address underlying issues - the lack of some major infrastructure, the nature of global trade and the like. And, that's something that the coordinated spending of our money by governments and international pan-government organisations (UN, EU an their various agencies, for example) excels at, and something that private charities are unable to address. We could give an average of more than 0.7% to NGOs and it would be well spent, but a smaller amount of our money channelled through the government could do much more.

    The TLDR; version - we need both individual giving to charity and government development aid.
  • Individuals giving their money (and often time in fundraising) have a place in international development - the projects funded make a small difference, addressing small but manageable local needs (for a school room, a well for clean water and the like), but these funding sources are generally small and thus unable to really address the big systemic issues. Where they can often have a big impact is where they can fund small but long term involvement - putting people into a community for the long term, much as missionaries would have once served, with relevant skills that community needs but lacks (someone with medical background, a skilled teacher or the like). But, by far the biggest impact of personal individual giving is on the donor and their community - the act of giving and fund raising is a means of informing people in wealthy nations about the conditions in other parts of the world, and the pressure we can then put on our governments and the businesses who enjoy our custom to step in and give the sort of help that's needed to actually change things, to treat the causes of poverty rather than just the symptoms; an example could be the pressure on supermarkets to stock Fair Trade.

    As @KarlLB said, serious development rather than just aid would seek to address underlying issues - the lack of some major infrastructure, the nature of global trade and the like. And, that's something that the coordinated spending of our money by governments and international pan-government organisations (UN, EU an their various agencies, for example) excels at, and something that private charities are unable to address. We could give an average of more than 0.7% to NGOs and it would be well spent, but a smaller amount of our money channelled through the government could do much more.

    The TLDR; version - we need both individual giving to charity and government development aid.

    We will still be giving more than all but one european country and most of the developed world. This is something we should be proud of

  • Again, irrelevant. The UK has committed to 0.7% of income being used for international development, an aim set by the UN, an aspiration under the Blair/Brown governments and enacted into UK law in the coalition government. A commitment that was in the 2019 manifesto of all the major parties. The UK, on this point at least, could be leading the other EU nations as a progressive movement towards solving the issues of immigration and refugees resulting from poverty we permit to exist. That is something to be proud of, not failing quite as badly as most other nations isn't exactly the greatest thing to be proud of.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Individuals giving their money (and often time in fundraising) have a place in international development - the projects funded make a small difference, addressing small but manageable local needs (for a school room, a well for clean water and the like), but these funding sources are generally small and thus unable to really address the big systemic issues. Where they can often have a big impact is where they can fund small but long term involvement - putting people into a community for the long term, much as missionaries would have once served, with relevant skills that community needs but lacks (someone with medical background, a skilled teacher or the like). But, by far the biggest impact of personal individual giving is on the donor and their community - the act of giving and fund raising is a means of informing people in wealthy nations about the conditions in other parts of the world, and the pressure we can then put on our governments and the businesses who enjoy our custom to step in and give the sort of help that's needed to actually change things, to treat the causes of poverty rather than just the symptoms; an example could be the pressure on supermarkets to stock Fair Trade.
    .

    The TLDR; version - we need both individual giving to charity and government development aid.

    The man who was our butcher for many years had a box on the counter - if you got a bag of bones for the dog, you'd put $5 into the box, along with some loose change from the purchase. Every couple of years, the butcher and a couple of mates would go to a village in Nepal, using the money to build a schoolhouse, then furnish it and stock it with books etc. One trip saw the building of proper retaining walls for the road above the village. Come the earthquake, those walls saved the village from earth slides. A simple example that's easily repeatable.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Again, irrelevant. The UK has committed to 0.7% of income being used for international development, an aim set by the UN, an aspiration under the Blair/Brown governments and enacted into UK law in the coalition government. A commitment that was in the 2019 manifesto of all the major parties. The UK, on this point at least, could be leading the other EU nations as a progressive movement towards solving the issues of immigration and refugees resulting from poverty we permit to exist. That is something to be proud of, not failing quite as badly as most other nations isn't exactly the greatest thing to be proud of.

    That was before we had to borrow more than £400 billion in a year

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    By that argument no-one with a mortgage should ever give to charity.
    I disagree. People tend to give to charity out of money they have left after paying the mortgage and all their other committments.

    People with a mortgage go into debt to pay for their house. At the same time, they support whatever charitable causes they support.

    The government goes into debt to finance capital projects / cause economic growth via countercyclic spending / reduce taxes / whatever. At the same time ...?

    The current masive increase in debt is all about the cost of covid 19. Things like Furlough payments

    And what do you think the places that won't receive aid any more would have been spending money on? Do you think that covid-19 is a peculiarly British problem?

    Covid-19 is exactly the kind of thing where there's a need to think globally, and part of the reason why it's affected so much of the world is because of an inability to think in those terms and organise across the world. It tended to affect rich countries first because rich countries have more citizens who are travelling around and who could bring it back home.

    But the longer term effects? They're actually worse in those poorer countries who now aren't going to get your aid money. Who are going to struggle to get vaccines once vaccines are available. And that are going to become reservoirs for the disease and make it difficult to eliminate.

    If you don't help other countries deal with the cost of covid-19 when they don't have the capacity to deal with it themselves, when unaided their health systems might collapse that much faster, where's the actual benefit to the UK overall? There isn't one. This is not a situation where you have a particular problem back home that you need to deal with, this is where you're a wealthy country dealing with the exact same problem that everyone else has to deal with.

    And when you tell poorer countries that they're going to have to suffer more because you're concentrating on your own suffering, there's a genuine chance that in the longer term that's going to come back to bite you.
  • 0.2% of gni is pretty much a rounding error at the ONS; but a huge sum for those who miss out as a result.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I certainly do want to help the poor and I use my own money, not the money of others

    Ah, the pipedream of the libertarian - saving the world through the whim of the generous doner.

    We tried that. Dickens set his writings in the dystopian and yet historically real result.

    I love a humongous kebab too, they actually bake the pitta in front of you.
Sign In or Register to comment.