Gransnet forums

News & politics

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

(35 Posts)
maddyone Mon 11-Sep-23 09:57:59

Rishi Sunak has apparently announced that the UK will donate one point six billion to third world countries, in order to help them work towards net zero. Apparently India is a possible recipient. India is the third biggest polluter in the world. India also sent a rocket into space a couple of weeks ago. Does it really need donated money to achieve a reduction in its pollution? Should it perhaps consider adjusting its priorities?

Meanwhile, back in the UK, it has been reported that Sunak has said benefits in Britain need to be, or will be, cut. I was out of the country all last week and so this is the first I’ve heard about the benefit cuts. Perhaps some of you know a bit more about it.

Can Britain really cut benefits to the poorest members of the country whilst simultaneously handing huge sums of money to third world countries, who notoriously fail to actually deliver on promises made when money is handed out. What safeguards would be put into place to ensure the money would be spent appropriately?

Am I alone in feeling somewhat sceptical about this? Is Sunak merely trying to ensure he’s remembered on the world stage? Why do I think that might be the case?

foxie48 Tue 12-Sep-23 11:07:55


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

Wouldn't disagree but it was meant to point out that we don't give money to third world countries out of generosity, it's a much more complex issue and it is not the simple choice that it might appear ie give less to oversees aid = more for UK benefits system.

maddyone Tue 12-Sep-23 12:10:38

When I started the thread, I didn’t mean that giving foreign aid, for whatever purpose, meant that benefits would need to receive less because there would be less money available. I’m sorry if that was how it was perceived. What I actually meant was, is it a good look for the PM/government to appear to be giving money away whilst simultaneously restricting benefits to people at home? And is the PM’s ‘look’ abroad of more importance to him than his reputation at home?
We know that much of our foreign aid is either wasted or goes into the wrong pockets, but I wasn’t intending to suggest that aid shouldn’t be given, merely how it looks to those at home who are having their benefits restricted at this time of high inflation. I’m unsure which benefits may restricted though. It appears to have been suggested that pensions wi

maddyone Tue 12-Sep-23 12:12:39

Sorry, site crashed, so to continue:

Pensions will rise by about 8.5% next year and that is based on the triple lock.

Whitewavemark2 Tue 12-Sep-23 12:25:41

Sunak was not prepared to say that the triple lock would be secure after the next election.

foxie48 Tue 12-Sep-23 13:00:15

Maddyone I've had that happen, sorry if I contributed to it! I think the problem is that so few of the voting population either understand or take much interest in how the world works in a political sense. That's why the bite size headlines work so well as so few of us actually want a long read so we can really appreciate what is g whilstoing on and have an informed opinion. I think a lot of people will be appalled that we can give money to India whilst cutting benefits, others wouldn't want money going to any overseas country and would welcome a cut in benefits too. Lots of shades of opinion in between too. So glad I'm not in politics.

Oreo Tue 12-Sep-23 13:08:26


Sunak was not prepared to say that the triple lock would be secure after the next election.

Neither was Angela Rayner when asked about it.

maddyone Tue 12-Sep-23 13:16:42

I think, re the triple lock, that neither party will continue with it after the next election. It’s just been on the BBC news, as I write, that ‘Labour have refused to commit to the triple lock after the next election.’ I’m as sure as I can be that the Conservatives won’t keep it either.

maddyone Tue 12-Sep-23 13:22:37

I’m sure you’re right foxie that many people wouldn’t agree with aid to India. In fact I have my own reservations about India because I think there are much more needy countries that we could be helping.

Doodledog Wed 13-Sep-23 09:04:44

I agree with all of foxie’s posts on this thread. Aid is a complex thing, and linking it to pensions and benefits is disingenuous of Sunak.

I think the triple lock is in danger. I don’t think it should go, but I think the concerted effort to encourage ageism and intergenerational strife has been designed to create a climate where stopping it will be popular with those who have been influenced my the spin - something that would have been unthinkable not long ago.

Young people have problems. Housing, the threat of AI to jobs. Zero hours. Expensive childcare. All of these things should been addressed by the government years ago, but it suits them to blame older people and paint us as greedy and selfish. Ageism is tolerated on social media in ways that hatred of any other social group would not be. Even on here - somewhere designed for older people- we get comments about ‘Granny generations’ that go unchallenged. Mumsnet is horrible about so-called ‘Boomers’ and their mods are complicit (although there has been a backlash recently). Anyone assuming that other groups thought as one would be (rightly) pulled up on it, but older people- particularly women (Karen, anyone?) are fair game. I think that has been contrived so that taking away or reducing pensions will be easier, despite the decades that most of us have contributed to them.

People seem unable to see things as separate issues. Keeping the triple lock can happen alongside foreign aid and helping the young. It’s not about sharing a cake between children, where one cries if another thinks she has got a bigger slice, but that is how we are encouraged to think. It’s depressing.