What would Jesus do?

Right-wing, traditionalist and contender for next leader of the Tory party Jacob Rees Mogg is fronting a Daily Express campaign to cut foreign aid. 



As Mogg is a self proclaimed Christian, surely cutting aid to poor people begs the question is this what would Jesus do?

Im all for helping others less fortunate and I'm a big advocate for it, but there are a lot of problems and people in this country that also need a lot of support.

If that money was to go those areas that desperately need it then fair enough, But it will likely end up in the pockets of big business and bankers.

y2johnny wrote:Im all for helping others less fortunate and I'm a big advocate for it, but there are a lot of problems and people in this country that also need a lot of support.

If that money was to go those areas that desperately need it then fair enough, But it will likely end up in the pockets of big business and bankers.

Spot on Johnny!

Agreed, it’s vitally important the money is going to the right places (as far as I’m aware it does on the whole).

What surprises me though, is that a self proclaimed Christian can front a campaign like this, doesn’t seem like something Jesus would do to me. So I suppose I’m surprised by the hypocrisy of the man.

I believe it was Cameron who wanted the practice of giving away billions enshrined in our law, (0.7% of GDP ?), even though there was, and is, solid proof that much of the funds are siphoned off to either people or projects theat do not necessarily help the poor and starving. Read somewhere that he thought the benefit in doing this was that the UK would be held in high esteem by the developing nations. To this argument, I would ask just one question, why, after all these years, and billions of pounds, dollars, etc., are we still paying for their development? surely, after all this investment, somebody must be able to stand on their own two feet by now. The truth is that we, amongst others, have allowed a dependency culture to develop, and by pouring more money into it, we are actually making it worse, in the longer term.
I think that we should stop the index linked rise in foreign aid, and target those who actually need it. I'm sure we all know of the time, a couple of years ago, when India said they didn't need the money, but were told that they would need to take it, as it had already been allocated. 
I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed, and where, and I agree with him that its needed at home, at least for the next few years. I think the Jesus angle is spurious in this case.

'Trade not aid' was the  subject of much debate  in the past and economically it makes a lot of sense provided you know who you are trading with. The problem of corruption and siphoning off is still a real one . That's why most major charities ( like Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children, Caritas, CAFOD, etc) have their own people on the ground to manage funds and direct them to where the money is most needed. Even so they are often blackmailed into handing funds over to corrupt politicians to be allowed to operate in certain countries and sometimes forced to deal with certain contractors ( and you can guess who owns them).
Rees-Mogg is correct in saying that direct aid to many overseas governments should be curtailed (if that is what he is saying) as it only ends up in the hands of corrupt charlatans like Mugabe and his ilk. its got nothing to do with religion.

What he's saying is we should slash the foreign aid budget, the 0.7% is what the UN recommends it's members commit, we are one of the few that does hit it, certainly something to be proud of IMO and credit to Cameron for maintaining it - although he used it to excuse total inaction on Syrian refugees.

We caused such damage to the developing world through colonisation, the effects of which are apparent even today, that I think a wealthy nation like ours should stick to the 0.7%. 

As said, totally agree we must ensure it is directed to the right places, but beyond the moral obligation there are other reasons to maintain foreign aid.

In 2014 the ODI reported that for every $1 of UK aid spent there was a $0.22 increase in exports, 'thereby providing an estimated 12,000 extra UK jobs'. Also the fact Pakistan is the chief recipient of UK aid surprised me, I'd assume there is some realpolitik at play there to be honest.

Obviously I'm a supporter of aid, but really this is about JRM's hypocrisy. Surely the christian thing to do would be to work harder to ensure aid doesn't fall into the wrong hands? Not slash it.

rammywhite wrote:'Trade not aid' was the  subject of much debate  in the past and economically it makes a lot of sense provided you know who you are trading with. The problem of corruption and siphoning off is still a real one . That's why most major charities ( like Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children, Caritas, CAFOD, etc) have their own people on the ground to manage funds and direct them to where the money is most needed. Even so they are often blackmailed into handing funds over to corrupt politicians to be allowed to operate in certain countries and sometimes forced to deal with certain contractors ( and you can guess who owns them).
Rees-Mogg is correct in saying that direct aid to many overseas governments should be curtailed (if that is what he is saying) as it only ends up in the hands of corrupt charlatans like Mugabe and his ilk. its got nothing to do with religion.

Good post and those are my views too.

However even those people on the ground seem to take personal advantage of the circumstances sometimes! -

Oxfam Haiti prostitute claims: Chief executive denies 'cover-up'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43013669

gloswhite wrote:I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed,

How does being a religious man equip him to know where aid is needed?

T.R.O.Y wrote:... and credit to Cameron for maintaining it - although he used it to excuse total inaction on Syrian refugees.

Just for information - and not connected to what you said but only that you mentioned the country Syria - an example how well meaning government aid ends up in the wrong people's pocket and maybe part of the reasoning behind the inaction on helping with the Syrian refugees in that area perhaps?

UK foreign aid money 'diverted to extremists' in Syria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42217132

Don't understand your conclusion, surely that's even more reason to help resettle child refugees through the Dubs agreement? Which the Tory party blocked.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed,

How does being a religious man equip him to know where aid is needed?

I would imagine that would flow from the person's religious credo.

I don't follow.

Personally, I do not believe this country is in a position anymore to be giving away such money. There are vital services in this country that could do with the money. We should sort them out before sending money abroad. However in cases where we've caused destruction of other countries, we should assist in helping rebuilding the country. But in the future, we should not get involved in such conflicts.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Don't understand your conclusion, surely that's even more reason to help resettle child refugees through the Dubs agreement? Which the Tory party blocked.

I didn't reach a conclusion.

I merely said that it may have /(may not have) formed part of the governments reasoning at the time.

Nothing at all to do with my reasoning.

My only reasoning for that particular post was to inform people of an actual instance of what sometimes happens with British economic aid.

And how I guess giving from the government doesn't always equate to receiving for those in need - and hence a need for the government to be cautious at times even when there is clear need.

If that was the case I'd say their reasoning was completely illogical. 

Completely agree with your wider point though, need to ensure aid gets into the right hands I'm confident the majority does.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed,

How does being a religious man equip him to know where aid is needed?

I would imagine that would flow from the person's religious credo.

I don't follow.

Seems simple enough to me -

Credo - a statement of the beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=SvF-WuCsIYfPgAad95mgDA&q=credo+meaning&oq=credo&gs_l=psy-ab.1.2.0l10.7021.8586.0.10270.5.5.0.0.0.0.77.355.5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.5.351...46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.QOI8mMX0gXI

Please don't patronise me Sluffy, I can speak English. I just seriously doubt Glos believes that the fact JRM is a religious man, better equips him to analyse global poverty and judge correct levels of aid distribution. Probably better for Glos to clarify what he meant, may have been a typo.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Please don't patronise me Sluffy, I can speak English. I just seriously doubt Glos believes that the fact JRM is a religious man, better equips him to analyse global poverty and judge correct levels of aid distribution. Probably better for Glos to clarify what he meant, may have been a typo.

Don't you consider what you've just said about Glos to be a much finer example of being patronising!


Patronise - treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=SfZ-Wtn8J4-5gQbAiLvYBA&q=patronise+meaning&oq=patronise&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l10.120866.123230.0.125175.4.4.0.0.0.0.125.308.3j1.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.307...0i67k1j0i10k1.0.Pi3P41u7Tuw

I haven’t said anything about Glos? I don’t think he meant that and have asked? You’re the one that’s speaking for him, I’m sure he’ll clarify when he’s online.

Not sure why you’re trying to pick an argument here.