What would Jesus do?

wanderlust wrote:

Angry Dad wrote:

gloswhite wrote: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.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

I also agree with Glos however I'd add that a few years ago I saw an expose of how "foreign aid" was spent and in essence it said that the British Government use "foreign aid" as a slush fund to grease the palms of officials in countries we want to trade with or influence politically, hence donating to e.g. India and China - huge economies that don't actually need the money. 
That has always been the British way when it comes to international relations and it could be argued that it works as we have done very well out of it.
The idea that our "foreign aid" budget is used to help the poor and needy - and thereby salve our collective conscience - is one that I think is a bit naive.
Can't locate the expose at the moment but there is a Telegraph article online which complained that whilst British aid was being used to cut the smoking rate of workers in China, British territories in the caribbean damaged by hurricane Irma weren't eligible. Pakistan is by far the biggest recipient and 37% of the entire budget goes to unilateral organisations such as the UN with only 16% being spent on crisis/disaster relief.
I would assume JRM has knowledge of how it's spent and maybe, just maybe he is actually proposing a change in the way we conduct trade and diplomacy rather cutting money for people who really need it. 
Perhaps his comments may stimulate a public debate on how the budget is spent?

wanderlust wrote:

Angry Dad wrote:

gloswhite wrote: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.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

I also agree with Glos however I'd add that a few years ago I saw an expose of how "foreign aid" was spent and in essence it said that the British Government use "foreign aid" as a slush fund to grease the palms of officials in countries we want to trade with or influence politically, hence donating to e.g. India and China - huge economies that don't actually need the money. 
That has always been the British way when it comes to international relations and it could be argued that it works as we have done very well out of it.
The idea that our "foreign aid" budget is used to help the poor and needy - and thereby salve our collective conscience - is one that I think is a bit naive.
Can't locate the expose at the moment but there is a Telegraph article online which complained that whilst British aid was being used to cut the smoking rate of workers in China, British territories in the caribbean damaged by hurricane Irma weren't eligible. Pakistan is by far the biggest recipient and 37% of the entire budget goes to unilateral organisations such as the UN with only 16% being spent on crisis/disaster relief.
I would assume JRM has knowledge of how it's spent and maybe, just maybe he is actually proposing a change in the way we conduct trade and diplomacy rather cutting money for people who really need it. 
Perhaps his comments may stimulate a public debate on how the budget is spent?

T.R.O.Y wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Angry Dad wrote:

gloswhite wrote: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.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

I also agree with Glos however I'd add that a few years ago I saw an expose of how "foreign aid" was spent and in essence it said that the British Government use "foreign aid" as a slush fund to grease the palms of officials in countries we want to trade with or influence politically, hence donating to e.g. India and China - huge economies that don't actually need the money. 
That has always been the British way when it comes to international relations and it could be argued that it works as we have done very well out of it.
The idea that our "foreign aid" budget is used to help the poor and needy - and thereby salve our collective conscience - is one that I think is a bit naive.
Can't locate the expose at the moment but there is a Telegraph article online which complained that whilst British aid was being used to cut the smoking rate of workers in China, British territories in the caribbean damaged by hurricane Irma weren't eligible. Pakistan is by far the biggest recipient and 37% of the entire budget goes to unilateral organisations such as the UN with only 16% being spent on crisis/disaster relief.
I would assume JRM has knowledge of how it's spent and maybe, just maybe he is actually proposing a change in the way we conduct trade and diplomacy rather cutting money for people who really need it. 
Perhaps his comments may stimulate a public debate on how the budget is spent?

Agree with most of this, however you say Mogg maybe proposing a change in spending rather than cutting money, which is the opposite of what he’s supporting. I think we’re all in agreement money is being misspent (although we may disagree with the scale), I would favour more scrutiny over where it’s going rather than cutting though. Cutting money to the poor would be at odds with Moggs ‘Christian beliefs in my opinion - hence the threads question.

okocha wrote:Penny Mordaunt told Andrew Marr this morning that foreign aid helps the NHS and our troops financially.

Leeds_Trotter wrote: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.

Soul Kitchen wrote:Mogg is about as much a Christian as Pontius Pilate!
Some of his comments beside this subject beg belief!
Twat of the highest order and a top flag bearer for the blue nose nasty bastards!

• Peter Theodore Alphege Rees-Mogg (b. 2007)
  
  
• Mary Anne Charlotte Emma Rees-Mogg (b. 2008)
  
  
• Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan Rees-Mogg (b. 2010)
  
  
• Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam Rees-Mogg (b. 2012)
  
  
• Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius Rees-Mogg (b. 22 February 2016)
  
  
• Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher Rees-Mogg (b. July 2017)
  
  

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:Mogg is about as much a Christian as Pontius Pilate!
Some of his comments beside this subject beg belief!
Twat of the highest order and a top flag bearer for the blue nose nasty bastards!

I notice all his offspring have been given some strange names. 

• Peter Theodore Alphege Rees-Mogg (b. 2007)
  
  
• Mary Anne Charlotte Emma Rees-Mogg (b. 2008)
  
  
• Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan Rees-Mogg (b. 2010)
  
  
• Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam Rees-Mogg (b. 2012)
  
  
• Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius Rees-Mogg (b. 22 February 2016)
  
  
• Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher Rees-Mogg (b. July 2017)
  
  

Sixtus and Anselm are bound to get the piss taken out of them.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Leeds_Trotter wrote: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.

This.

gloswhite wrote:Add me to this meeting of great minds 

gloswhite wrote:Add me to this meeting of great minds 

Natasha Whittam wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Add me to this meeting of great minds 

Natasha Whittam wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Add me to this meeting of great minds