Gransnet forums

News & politics

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

(34 Posts)
Oreo Mon 11-Sept-23 12:05:22

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.

MaizieD Mon 11-Sept-23 11:51:46

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...

foxie48 Mon 11-Sept-23 11:37:58

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.

nanafunny Mon 11-Sept-23 11:16:38

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.

Whitewavemark2 Mon 11-Sept-23 11:03:15

My god we come below Mexico!!

Doodledog Mon 11-Sept-23 10:49:56

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?

MaizieD Mon 11-Sept-23 10:47:19

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.

Whitewavemark2 Mon 11-Sept-23 10:24:15

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.

maddyone Mon 11-Sept-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?