Should have known my socialist mate would get upset over this
Cameron didn't come up with that figure, the UN did. And the resolution that developed nations should give 0.7% of GDP was made in 1970 so I doubt if Cameron was around then.Why did Government commit to a figure, and not to something practical and useful such as providing clean water and/or safe sanitation to parts of the developing world that do not have it?
Instead Cameron came up with a figure that has to be spent no matter what.
It was one of the trade-offs to get a working coalition with the Lib Dems in 2010; they insisted on it being written into law.Cameron didn't come up with that figure, the UN did. And the resolution that developed nations should give 0.7% of GDP was made in 1970 so I doubt if Cameron was around then.
Didn’t realise that only six countries in the world meet the 0.7% target. All European. Well 5 from next year until we do again.Cameron didn't come up with that figure, the UN did. And the resolution that developed nations should give 0.7% of GDP was made in 1970 so I doubt if Cameron was around then.
Cameron was squealing earlier. That tells me it's a good thing.Boris would be looking at a potential 100+ majority if he'd just binned DFID in its entirity and pledged the money for the UK instead.
In response to the hand wringing squeals of what about the children, a Churchillian response would have been along the lines of well if you're so effin concerned, stump up your own cash.
Once this country finally gets back on it's financial feet, then, and only then, should lobbing taxpayers money at the 3rd world even be considered.
At least the public sector employees still HAVE a job . . . irrespective of whether their pay is frozen, or not !!Given that this government can seemingly (and unilaterally) make shit up on the hoof under the national emergency banner, then might I be as bold to suggest another volte face and for it to un-ring-fence, un-enshrine and un-law overseas aid and reduce it to 0.0% of GDP? To continue contributing any cash overseas when the country is on the verge of an unprecedented economic disaster is gross mis-governance.
It's a question I intend posing to the first public sector worker I hear bleating about pay freezes. I'll ask that knight of the evil empire Lenny (*******) Henry what he thinks too, given his attitude towards the White Man's Burden... should I be unfortunate enough to meet the cnut.
The gulf between those governing and those governed just got wider.
Some good news amongst all the present gloom.Sarah Champion MP, chair of the international aid select committee, said the cut in aid was devastating. She said: “Within six months a specialist development government department has been scrapped, this year’s budget has already been slashed and next year’s too by even more. I think we can wave goodbye to the development superpower status that we have proudly had for so long.”
Oh Dear, how sad!
At least the public sector employees still HAVE a job . . . irrespective of whether their pay is frozen, or not !!
Plenty in the private sector would envy them !!
Page 2, point 15 from the following report: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmdfence/494/494.pdfNot to my knowledge . . under what pretext ?!
Page 2, point 15 from the following report: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmdfence/494/494.pdf
"In oral evidence, Peter Watkins, Director General for Security Policy at the MoD, said that NATO guidelines allowed the UK to “include public spending that contributes to our defence”. While the “vast bulk” of expenditure was spent by the Ministry of Defence, the guidelines allow the UK to include expenditure from other funds, such as the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund which is controlled jointly by the MoD and the Department for International Development (DfID)."
This from the Executive Summary:
"The Report commends the UK Government’s commitment to UK defence and finds that its accounting criteria fall firmly within existing NATO guidelines. However, those criteria have been amended to include several significant items not previously included when calculating defence expenditure. Since these items are instrumental in attaining the minimum 2% figure, the Government can be said to have ‘shifted the goalposts’ in comparison with previous years. There is a risk that the promise of new money to defence could be undermined by the inclusion of items in the re-calculation of defence expenditure that previously had not fallen within the MoD budget."
...in other words, Cameron threw as much as he could reasonably get away with at 'defence' in the loosest terms to prove that we were hitting our 2 percent commitment.
A nasty bit of underhandedness from a rather mediocre PM, in my opinion.