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

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.

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.

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.

Whitewavemark2

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 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.

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

Sorry, site crashed, so to continue:

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

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

Oreo

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

Whitewavemark2

My god we come below Mexico!!

That was my reaction too.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.