One point six billion to support third world countries to move towards net zero.

With regard to the benefits. I haven’t read too much about it - perhaps now is the time? But I understand that he will no longer guarantee the triple lock for one thing. With 18% of pensioners already living in poverty, this figure will inevitably rise, if the government does not ensure that pensions keep up with inflation etc.

With regard to benefit payments overall, I was absolutely shocked to read this week that the U.K. has one of the lowest overall benefit payments in the world . I will try to find the graph as it is truly shocking.

You can find the graph here:

www.cbpp.org/social-security-benefits-are-low-compared-with-other-advanced-countries-6

As for £1.6 billion? Mere chicken feed to a government that has paid £1.6 billion to rent for a year a disease ridden 'barge' to house a few of its enormous backlog of asylum seekers.

It's interesting that so many people claim that the reason asylum seekers come to the UK is because of the high rate of benefits, isn't it?

My god we come below Mexico!!

I tried to give PM a fair chance but now feel he knows his future as PM is on a shoogily peg and wants to leave a legacy, appropriate or not.
He is totally out of kilter with the common man.

I am furious about the possible benefit cuts but I can separate that from giving money to third world countries. Climate change is a world wide problem which needs a whole world approach. Climate change causes increased migration, not necessarily from the countries that currently cause the most pollution but most certainly to those countries, which in the past, have caused the most pollution. I think we need to be a lot less parochial if we really want a better world for everyone to live in.

I actually think that we should be giving more, foxie48.

However, if the implication is that cuts to benefits will have to be made to pay for it (which is really total nonsense and completely untrue) I can see it being another grievance for xenophobes...

I do think that Sunak would be wise to back away from so much apparent support for India. The president is a disgusting populist Hindu Nationalist and I don't think the UK should be too closely connected to his regime.

Then there is always the question of his wife's enormous wealth deriving from her Indian family's company, which still has connections with Russia...

I agree with what you say about the Indian president, he’s no friend to the UK.
At least Sunak didn’t give in to his requests to more visas tho, saying trade and immigration matters are two different things.
As to the pension money I think any near future government won’t be able to continue with the triple lock.I would like it to continue for my Mum’s sake but think even a Labour government won’t be able to promise it.

The amount for helping other countries go greener isn’t that much in the great scheme of things, but I have real doubts that any money given will go to the actual cause.
As already said, any country with it’s own space programme hardly deserves any aid for anything.

Hunt has also suggested that he will need to cut benefits if the government wants to cut tax.

So it is under pressure all the way around.

If India can put a spacecraft on the moon it doesn’t need our cash, maybe as a sweetener for a better trade deal

I am another person who is questioning the need to send aid to India.

This country can land a spaceship on the moon, but has taken the decision to leave the welfare of its most vulnerable citizens and that of reaching net zero on the charitable donations of other countries.

Well put, GrannyGravy.

The definition of Third World Country is not what many imagine either, too.

India's GDP and rapid technological development make it questionable whether or they need aid from the UK.

Callistemon21

Well put, GrannyGravy.

The definition of Third World Country is not what many imagine either, too.

India's GDP and rapid technological development make it questionable whether or they need aid from the UK.

I agree with this to some extent but if the money is to be used to mitigate climate change, I feel we are on a moral basis, somewhat obliged to help. India may be becoming an economic powerhouse but they have lifted millions of their population out of poverty. We also became an industrial powerhouse in the 18c, it was powered by the raw materials which we had access to from our colonies as well as our coal, our labour and our ingenuity and we caused a huge amount of pollution, we then used our wealth to travel by air and road etc. If we want the world to become less polluted is it really fair to say they can't travel the same road that we did? I know it's not always easy to accept responsibility for our past but perhaps in this case, perhaps it's the best option? Unless anyone can think of a way of isolating the UK against the consequences of climate change. We've become a very small world and I think we need to accept that. Well that's how I think.

Whitewavemark2

My god we come below Mexico!!

That was my reaction too.

We don’t know that our aid (this particular aid) will be going to India, but it’s been suggested as possible. Wherever it goes, I would certainly want some safeguards in place to ensure that the money is spent where it is meant to be spent and would not end up in some Swiss bank account in the name of a totally immoral leader of a very poor country. I know this has happened to previous aid we have given and we know that some of our aid has ended up purchasing arms which have been used to suppress the very people we were trying to help. But Sunak doesn’t give a stuff about my concern about safeguards because I believe this is nothing more than a vanity project for him.

maddyone

We don’t know that our aid (this particular aid) will be going to India, but it’s been suggested as possible. Wherever it goes, I would certainly want some safeguards in place to ensure that the money is spent where it is meant to be spent and would not end up in some Swiss bank account in the name of a totally immoral leader of a very poor country. I know this has happened to previous aid we have given and we know that some of our aid has ended up purchasing arms which have been used to suppress the very people we were trying to help. But Sunak doesn’t give a stuff about my concern about safeguards because I believe this is nothing more than a vanity project for him.

We have lost a lot of influence and trade around the world because of our wanting to influence internal politics of many nations. The reality is that if the leaders dont get what they want front us or other western countries, China will willingly pay in whatever form is required no questions asked,

India has the third highest number of billionaires in the world.

It also has a huge number of very wealthy people who buy up businesses and land around the world too.

Hunt has now suggested according to a couple of outlets that there will be no tax cuts.

Sensible decision - it would look dreadful if they took the decision to cut tax as well as benefits.

His wifes family are very powerful in India and I dont think India is a third world country is it? I know it is still classified as a developing country but not third world

Growth in pay now keeping up with inflation meaning that growth in living standards is 0%.

Pensions the same - so growth at 0% if they rise at 8+% as predicted. Anything less will be a cut in pensioner living standards.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/icai-recommendations-on-uk-aid-to-india-uk-government-response/government-response-to-the-independent-commission-on-aid-impacts-review-uk-aid-to-india-march-2023

Lots of information here for anyone who wants to read it.
"We have no lasting friends, no lasting enemies, only lasting interests. "Winston Churchill. This quote sums up the UK's approach to pretty much everything we do on the world stage and giving overseas aid to India is no different.

I really think foxie48 that the quote represents the true feelings of any government in the world.

I do wonder about pensions though, because my French friends seem to have state and occupational contributions combined. They are always surprised that I have two pensions and DH has three. Could that make a difference to the data if only state pension is counted?