- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
Since when have people needed to understand something in order to have an (often quite vociferous) opinion on it
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Finance] Foreign Aid
- Thread starter Frankie
- Start date
Since when have people needed to understand something in order to have an (often quite vociferous) opinion on it
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Since when have people needed to understand something in order to have an (often quite vociferous) opinion on it
Always you, you you isn't it?
The cutting of overseas aid is Right-wing virtue-signalling and faux-patriotism - it panders to the Gammonazis and Daily Mail readers.
What is so nauseating is the sheer hypocrisy of those who claim "We should cut overseas aid and look after our own instead", because many of them equally resent 'looking after our own'. We saw this in the vitriol directed at Marcus Rashford's free-school dinners campaign a few weeks ago, when so many Right-wingers said "People shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them. Why should my taxes pay to feed poor children." (the predictable online comments 'in' the Mail and the Telegraph were disgusting and depressing in the hatred, bigotry and ignorance they revealed among their readers).
The same "charity begins at home'" types also seem to assume that absolutely anyone in receipt of Benefits or assistance from Food Banks is a feckless 'scrounger' getting something-for-nothing and 'milking the system', so again, absolutely no desire to 'help our own', only condemnation and derision - even though the largest category of welfare claimants are those in work but receiving poverty wages (while many corporate CEOs and shareholders pocket £ millions).
I can't help suspecting that many of the 'scrap overseas aid' brigade hate the British poor and working-class just as much as they hate foreigners, and don't want a single penny of their taxes spent on either - only hand-outs for big business and Tory donors!
What is so nauseating is the sheer hypocrisy of those who claim "We should cut overseas aid and look after our own instead", because many of them equally resent 'looking after our own'. We saw this in the vitriol directed at Marcus Rashford's free-school dinners campaign a few weeks ago, when so many Right-wingers said "People shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them. Why should my taxes pay to feed poor children." (the predictable online comments 'in' the Mail and the Telegraph were disgusting and depressing in the hatred, bigotry and ignorance they revealed among their readers).
The same "charity begins at home'" types also seem to assume that absolutely anyone in receipt of Benefits or assistance from Food Banks is a feckless 'scrounger' getting something-for-nothing and 'milking the system', so again, absolutely no desire to 'help our own', only condemnation and derision - even though the largest category of welfare claimants are those in work but receiving poverty wages (while many corporate CEOs and shareholders pocket £ millions).
I can't help suspecting that many of the 'scrap overseas aid' brigade hate the British poor and working-class just as much as they hate foreigners, and don't want a single penny of their taxes spent on either - only hand-outs for big business and Tory donors!
Last edited:
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
Sounds like you're getting a bit JCFG again, maybe time to take a little break from the keyboard ?And you didn't give my post a thumbs up
Fair enough, I'm happy to do my bit - an 11th successive year of a pay freeze, but grateful that I've still got a job - but what belt-tightening will our corporate millionaires and 'City' bankers be experiencing.
As always - as in the post-2010 austerity - it's the same (poorer) people and sections of society who have to make sacrifices 'in the national interest', while those at the top continue to get paid £ millions, enjoy their huge annual bonuses (merely for dong their job), and receive more tax cuts to boost their obscene salaries even further.
During the last period of austerity, the top 1% doubled their wealth, even though we were told that "We're all in it together" when jobs, services and wages were being cut.
Since when have people needed to understand something in order to have an (often quite vociferous) opinion on it
Totally agree, I think India was mentioned by the OP, however.....
https://dfidnews.blog.gov.uk/2018/1...-longer-gives-any-money-to-indian-government/
nicko31
Well-known member
I'm afraid the governments actions are all about populist politics.
Take the money away from some of poorest in the world and give the impression you are doing it to help the poorest at home
Its very bad timing just as we leave the EU transition phase and are supposed to be building new bridges and wider opportunities.
The tax dodging billionaires in certain sectors of the media will love it though, this is pure red meat
AlastairWatts
Active member
'Take the money away'? It wasn't theirs in the first place, it belongs to the British taxpayer. And if we're going to give overseas aid then it surely doesn't need to go to China or India,both of which now own huge chunks of British industry.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
The 'two posters' are never logged in at the same time.
studio150
Well-known member
PMQs Johnson is asked by Ian Blackford "...indeed, a senior Government Minister said that it
“paved the way for Britain to meet the UN target of spending 0.7% of national income on aid…and that remains our commitment.”
Does the Prime Minister agree with that senior Government Minister?"
Johnson's reply "....It was a Conservative Government who instituted it, and this country can be incredibly proud of what we have delivered for the poorest and neediest people in the world. That will continue.
..."
Blackford "I am glad that the Prime Minister seemed to agree with the quote, because the words I quoted were his—it is exactly what he told the House of Commons less than six months ago. I take it that the briefing that has gone on is not true and that the 0.7% commitment will remain in place...."
Then 45 minutes latter the Chancellor announced this was being reduced to 0.5% and saying that the country will agree this is the right thing to do. So theTories are just pandering to the xenophobics and yet another lie from Johnson .
The amount would already have been reduced due to lower GDP this year, so in effect a double reduction.
Still more money to give to them chums
“paved the way for Britain to meet the UN target of spending 0.7% of national income on aid…and that remains our commitment.”
Does the Prime Minister agree with that senior Government Minister?"
Johnson's reply "....It was a Conservative Government who instituted it, and this country can be incredibly proud of what we have delivered for the poorest and neediest people in the world. That will continue.
..."
Blackford "I am glad that the Prime Minister seemed to agree with the quote, because the words I quoted were his—it is exactly what he told the House of Commons less than six months ago. I take it that the briefing that has gone on is not true and that the 0.7% commitment will remain in place...."
Then 45 minutes latter the Chancellor announced this was being reduced to 0.5% and saying that the country will agree this is the right thing to do. So theTories are just pandering to the xenophobics and yet another lie from Johnson .
The amount would already have been reduced due to lower GDP this year, so in effect a double reduction.
Still more money to give to them chums
[TWEET]1331685634143088640[/TWEET]
portslade seagull
Well-known member
No issues if the help goes to those that need it as per Marcus Rashford. Have a friend who works in a food bank who phoned somebody up to advise their parcel was ready. The lady turned up in a brand ne 4x4 Mercedes and took the parcel without as much as a thank you. They were somewhat flabbergasted but couldn't question it
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
To get food from a food bank. you have to have vouchers issued.
Well said. But you're wasting your breath, sadly. You don't imagine the likes of das reich would ever change his mind about anything, based on consideration of the facts, do you?
That sounds like.....a lie! See [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION]'s reply.
I wouldn't say a lie, could be the said person claims some benefits which allow such vouchers to be issued?
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
Sounds almost unbelievable but as you have rightly pointed out, there may have been extremely unusual circumstances (or maybe picking up for someone else?). There will always be piss takers but for every Brand new Merc 4x4 that turns up, you know there will be thousands (if not tens of thousands) helped who are genuinely in need and for me, that is far more important.
Plus knowing that, even if it were the case, she would have spent more in petrol, insurance, and depreciation on a Brand New Mercedes 4x4 picking the parcel up than the food parcel could possibly be worth
You do have to wonder whether she is cut out for a future in benefit fraud
Last edited:
blue-shifted
Banned
This is a cheap political stunt by a useless populist government.
Instead of doing something easy like this, why not actually make hard decisions. Such as
Increase taxes on the wealthy people who donate to your party
Stop business residing offshore undercutting small UK businesses
Instead of doing something easy like this, why not actually make hard decisions. Such as
Increase taxes on the wealthy people who donate to your party
Stop business residing offshore undercutting small UK businesses
herecomesaregular
We're in the pipe, 5 by 5
Based on a sample size of 1 only, I was a bit put off by my friend (on benefits, never worked, vulnerable adult) who received a weekly food parcel during the first lockdown. She couldn't request anything. 90% of what she received (teabags but doesn't drink tea, fresh fruit and veg but doesn't eat either, rice, porridge oats, pasta but doesn't eat any) was just wasted and binned.