If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
But the target is a percentage of GDP exactly for that reason - so it's automatically 11.3% lower due to the decline in GDP. It's excessive virtue signalling - to the far-right Tory MPs on the backbenches - to cut it twice over.
So much for the sanctity of the manifesto. So much for virtue of FPTP in preventing governments from abandoning manifesto commitments.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Good idea, we might also look at cutting some of the vast salaries in the aid sector, David Miliband for example is on $1 million a year as ceo at International Rescue plus $50 000 a year housing allowance, I expect he could afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle on half or even a quarter of that while the money actually goes where it is needed rather than funding his restaurant and travel bill!
IRC is a US based NGO (Miliband is based in NYC). His salary may look excessive but it simply reflects the skewed distribution of income in the US, where corporate CEOs get huge salaries and big charities hoping to compete for talent also pay a lot for the top jobs. More importantly, the UK payments to IRC go to fund specific programmes that they run with some of the most desparate people in the world and not to pay Mr Miliband's salary. HYUFD you are in danger of becoming a boring party hack rather than someone who contributes anything insightful to the discussion. This kind of post is in my opinion unworthy of PB.
Oh it is very worthy of PB and if it annoys leftwing handwringers like you who are completely out of touch with the 60% of the population who think we spend too much on overseas aid especially when at a time of deficit all to the good!! https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1330571816272793610?s=20
No, it's just that I know quite a lot about the good that IRC does with people who really have absolutely nothing, truly the wretched of the Earth. It is sad to see that work traduced in the name of petty point scoring by a sad and bitter party hack.
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Indeed, voting not to cut overseas aid might go down well with voters in Islington and Oxford, it would go down like a lead balloon in the Red Wall and Starmer knows that as do Sunak and Boris
If we are looking at the raw politics of this for 2021 then temporarily cutting the aid budget for that year by £4bn, and creating a new levelling-up fund for for the North for *precisely* that same amount, will be heard loud and clear by voters in the Red Wall - who will take it into account in the local and mayoral elections.
This was leaked several days early for a reason. And it's because No.10 knew that it would be heavily criticised by rather privileged and well-off cross-party establishment figures, largely based in London and the southeast. Some of them have even gone so far as to profess their love for spending money on the world's poor whilst at the same time snobbily dismissing spending money on the Red Wall as pork barrel politics.
They've played straight into the Government's hands.
Okay, but the weakness in your argument is that the Tories committed to the 0.7 in their 2019 manifesto. Why? The factors you mention suggest they should have been campaigning to reduce it then, not maintain it - maybe they could have won even more Red Wall seats - "we'll move money from foreign aid to Bolsover High Street"! Covid hasn't changed that argument.
And as I've asked before, are PB Tories happy that a clear manifesto commitment has been ditched so readily? Which other ones would they ditch? And why should we trust them if they've ditched the aid one within a year?
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
Hey Phillip. How about I let you in on a little secret.
Sometimes, politicians say things that aren't true. Even politicians you approve of.
I know. Shocking, isn't it?
This is much more about populist politics than the rounding-error reduction in borrowing.
0.2% of GDP is a rounding error to you?
OK if that's the case you should easily be able to find such a "rounding error" of savings somewhere else instead? I'm all ears ...
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
I am much reminded of a dinner, where a progressive friend got exposed to social/political views of Ghanian and Nigerians of my aquaintance.
The Western world is accelerating faster and faster into a social Singularity - we are becoming increasingly hard to understand to a big chunk of the rest of the world. Many of the values we hold (or barely think of as common place) are quite simply "WTF?!?" to many others.
So what?
Expecting everyone to be a nice progressive liberal just because progressive liberals are nice is not how the world actually works.
If you want people to be nice progressive liberals, they you will need to stand up for nice progressive liberalism. Advocate it. Educate about it. And there will be push back. Which is to be be expected.
I totally agree with your 2nd para. Well said - apart from the snarky use of "nice". But I really don't know where you get this stuff as in your 1st para. It's most odd. All the people of leftish views you meet seem to have walked straight out of the screen of a Twitter parody account. Progressive liberals are not all of a sweet disposition, of course they're not. Look at me. I'm a right old pain in the pipe much of the time. I'm full of bad thoughts and primitive sentiment. But what I try to do is fight this in myself rather than shrug and say it's human nature or (worse) wallow in it. It's my biggest beef with the populist right of politics that they encourage rather discourage the baser side of the spectrum of human thought and emotion.
Spot on. The belief that nice progressive liberalism is a life style choice plucked from a shelf rather than a process involving hard yards and a continuing examination of one's own primitive sentiment is depressingly common. As you imply some of those holding that view seem also to believe that considerable leeway should be given to all sorts of deplorable ideas just because, and even that many of the folk holding these ideas are very fine people.
Let's hear it for muscular progressive liberalism!
- Yes. That's it. No nicey nicey "bien pensants" are we.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Good idea, we might also look at cutting some of the vast salaries in the aid sector, David Miliband for example is on $1 million a year as ceo at International Rescue plus $50 000 a year housing allowance, I expect he could afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle on half or even a quarter of that while the money actually goes where it is needed rather than funding his restaurant and travel bill!
IRC is a US based NGO (Miliband is based in NYC). His salary may look excessive but it simply reflects the skewed distribution of income in the US, where corporate CEOs get huge salaries and big charities hoping to compete for talent also pay a lot for the top jobs. More importantly, the UK payments to IRC go to fund specific programmes that they run with some of the most desparate people in the world and not to pay Mr Miliband's salary. HYUFD you are in danger of becoming a boring party hack rather than someone who contributes anything insightful to the discussion. This kind of post is in my opinion unworthy of PB.
What was Miliband's track record as a corporate CEO?
He was UK foreign secretary and has a lot of useful contacts as well as experience of running a large organisation. Plenty of politicians go on to well paid corporate gigs (eg Clegg, Hague) so clearly NGOs who want well connected and experienced bosses are fishing in the same pond as those with much deeper pockets. IRC has a budget of almost $800mn and employs over 11,000 people in over 40 countries. I don't think Miliband is especially overpaid.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
It's not funded in large part by British taxpayers, or indeed at all. IRC has an $800mn budget and it is a US based charity. UK taxpayer money funds some specific programmes which IRC runs on behalf of the government. Seriously, what do you people think that senior people in large organisations get paid? The Daily Mail is stuffed full of people earning more than Miliband.
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Indeed, voting not to cut overseas aid might go down well with voters in Islington and Oxford, it would go down like a lead balloon in the Red Wall and Starmer knows that as do Sunak and Boris
If we are looking at the raw politics of this for 2021 then temporarily cutting the aid budget for that year by £4bn, and creating a new levelling-up fund for for the North for *precisely* that same amount, will be heard loud and clear by voters in the Red Wall - who will take it into account in the local and mayoral elections.
This was leaked several days early for a reason. And it's because No.10 knew that it would be heavily criticised by rather privileged and well-off cross-party establishment figures, largely based in London and the southeast. Some of them have even gone so far as to profess their love for spending money on the world's poor whilst at the same time snobbily dismissing spending money on the Red Wall as pork barrel politics.
They've played straight into the Government's hands.
Okay, but the weakness in your argument is that the Tories committed to the 0.7 in their 2019 manifesto. Why? The factors you mention suggest they should have been campaigning to reduce it then, not maintain it - maybe they could have won even more Red Wall seats - "we'll move money from foreign aid to Bolsover High Street"! Covid hasn't changed that argument.
And as I've asked before, are PB Tories happy that a clear manifesto commitment has been ditched so readily? Which other ones would they ditch? And why should we trust them if they've ditched the aid one within a year?
Given the unforeseen economic damage of Covid19 yes I am 100% OK with it being dropped.
Had the economy continued to grow there was no reason to need to drop the commitment but continuing to honour it when not a single other comparable economy does? No, I am perfectly OK with dropping it.
We should restore the commitment when we can both afford to do so and are certain that other comparable economies are doing the same thing as part of a collective global effort.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
It's not funded in large part by British taxpayers, or indeed at all. IRC has an $800mn budget and it is a US based charity. UK taxpayer money funds some specific programmes which IRC runs on behalf of the government. Seriously, what do you people think that senior people in large organisations get paid? The Daily Mail is stuffed full of people earning more than Miliband.
Its not a charity then it is a business for the enrichment of its staff and can raise the money privately then as far as I'm concerned.
I would not be OK with taxpayer money going to the Daily Mail either.
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
More Borrowing! A bit more will make little difference at the macro level. Also abandon some of the proposes increases in Defence spending.
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
More Borrowing! A bit more will make little difference at the macro level. Also abandon some of the proposes increases in Defence spending.
0.2% of GDP is "little difference" to you?
Then cutting it from institutions capable of paying millions to the likes of David Milliband will also make "little difference" then, so what is the problem?
0.2% of GDP is not "little difference" in borrowing. Find somewhere else to fund the gap or stop complaining.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
It's not funded in large part by British taxpayers, or indeed at all. IRC has an $800mn budget and it is a US based charity. UK taxpayer money funds some specific programmes which IRC runs on behalf of the government. Seriously, what do you people think that senior people in large organisations get paid? The Daily Mail is stuffed full of people earning more than Miliband.
Its not a charity then it is a business for the enrichment of its staff and can raise the money privately then as far as I'm concerned.
I would not be OK with taxpayer money going to the Daily Mail either.
The money for Miliband's salary is raised privately. Around $175mn of their income is from donations while $566mn comes from grants. The UK government like most governments tends to distribute aid through NGOs rather than building its own network of state employees and infrastructure, because NGOs can deliver it more cheaply and better.
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
More Borrowing! A bit more will make little difference at the macro level. Also abandon some of the proposes increases in Defence spending.
0.2% of GDP is "little difference" to you?
Then cutting it from institutions capable of paying millions to the likes of David Milliband will also make "little difference" then, so what is the problem?
0.2% of GDP is not "little difference" in borrowing. Find somewhere else to fund the gap or stop complaining.
Borrow more! If Johnson can justify increases in Defence spending, there is no moral justification for reducing foreign aid.
I'm increasingly worried the Foreign Aid move is some last gasp Cummings'esque cunning plan to distract from something else. I don't support the move personally, I'd have kept it at 0.7%, but the way people are reacting to a reduction in a pretty arbitrary figure, and which might be set for a classic government u-turn, almost feels tailor made to have distracted from something as it gets very disproportionate levels of attention and moral outrage.
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Indeed, voting not to cut overseas aid might go down well with voters in Islington and Oxford, it would go down like a lead balloon in the Red Wall and Starmer knows that as do Sunak and Boris
If we are looking at the raw politics of this for 2021 then temporarily cutting the aid budget for that year by £4bn, and creating a new levelling-up fund for for the North for *precisely* that same amount, will be heard loud and clear by voters in the Red Wall - who will take it into account in the local and mayoral elections.
This was leaked several days early for a reason. And it's because No.10 knew that it would be heavily criticised by rather privileged and well-off cross-party establishment figures, largely based in London and the southeast. Some of them have even gone so far as to profess their love for spending money on the world's poor whilst at the same time snobbily dismissing spending money on the Red Wall as pork barrel politics.
They've played straight into the Government's hands.
Okay, but the weakness in your argument is that the Tories committed to the 0.7 in their 2019 manifesto. Why? The factors you mention suggest they should have been campaigning to reduce it then, not maintain it - maybe they could have won even more Red Wall seats - "we'll move money from foreign aid to Bolsover High Street"! Covid hasn't changed that argument.
And as I've asked before, are PB Tories happy that a clear manifesto commitment has been ditched so readily? Which other ones would they ditch? And why should we trust them if they've ditched the aid one within a year?
I have no idea why the Tories included it in the manifesto - I thought it a blunder when that detail was leaked during the GE campaign - and have absolutely no problem with reducing it now.
Certainly it should be cut in preference to raising any new taxes.
Just found a wild Trump claim that turned out to be reasonably true - back in March when he said a vaccine might be possible within a year. Granted, he started off by saying a 'matter of months', so he was clearly just throwing around numbers, but still, stopped clocks.
Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor will stand down at the end of the season - two years after first announcing his intention to do so.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
They are all thesame , most of the money goes on fat cat salaries , 5 star hotels , etc. Just another gravy train.
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Indeed, voting not to cut overseas aid might go down well with voters in Islington and Oxford, it would go down like a lead balloon in the Red Wall and Starmer knows that as do Sunak and Boris
If we are looking at the raw politics of this for 2021 then temporarily cutting the aid budget for that year by £4bn, and creating a new levelling-up fund for for the North for *precisely* that same amount, will be heard loud and clear by voters in the Red Wall - who will take it into account in the local and mayoral elections.
This was leaked several days early for a reason. And it's because No.10 knew that it would be heavily criticised by rather privileged and well-off cross-party establishment figures, largely based in London and the southeast. Some of them have even gone so far as to profess their love for spending money on the world's poor whilst at the same time snobbily dismissing spending money on the Red Wall as pork barrel politics.
They've played straight into the Government's hands.
Okay, but the weakness in your argument is that the Tories committed to the 0.7 in their 2019 manifesto. Why? The factors you mention suggest they should have been campaigning to reduce it then, not maintain it - maybe they could have won even more Red Wall seats - "we'll move money from foreign aid to Bolsover High Street"! Covid hasn't changed that argument.
And as I've asked before, are PB Tories happy that a clear manifesto commitment has been ditched so readily? Which other ones would they ditch? And why should we trust them if they've ditched the aid one within a year?
Look at all Manifesto smallprint. It will say "all promises subject to the economy not suffering its worst peace-time meltdown in 300 years. If it does - all bets are off."
And even if it doesn't specify that, the vast bulk of voters would be sanguine enough to expect it.
Comments
So much for the sanctity of the manifesto. So much for virtue of FPTP in preventing governments from abandoning manifesto commitments.
And as I've asked before, are PB Tories happy that a clear manifesto commitment has been ditched so readily? Which other ones would they ditch? And why should we trust them if they've ditched the aid one within a year?
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
OK if that's the case you should easily be able to find such a "rounding error" of savings somewhere else instead? I'm all ears ...
Seriously, what do you people think that senior people in large organisations get paid? The Daily Mail is stuffed full of people earning more than Miliband.
Had the economy continued to grow there was no reason to need to drop the commitment but continuing to honour it when not a single other comparable economy does? No, I am perfectly OK with dropping it.
We should restore the commitment when we can both afford to do so and are certain that other comparable economies are doing the same thing as part of a collective global effort.
I would not be OK with taxpayer money going to the Daily Mail either.
Then cutting it from institutions capable of paying millions to the likes of David Milliband will also make "little difference" then, so what is the problem?
0.2% of GDP is not "little difference" in borrowing. Find somewhere else to fund the gap or stop complaining.
Probably my imagination.
Certainly it should be cut in preference to raising any new taxes.
And even if it doesn't specify that, the vast bulk of voters would be sanguine enough to expect it.