I agree, this sounds like a good idea.

Even if he doesn't really give a shit and it's totally fake, it's still having a good effect no?
What has Cameron done to screw over the country? (Sincere question, I actually don't know that much about our country's politics)

I think this is just a plan by David Cameron to slash the foreign aid budget.

On the one hand, it sounds like a good idea to try and force gay rights.

Though on the other hand, i worry about the Anti-UK blowback in countries where people will suddenly begin starving combined with cultures that wouldn't even recognize gay rights if they weren't ruled by autocrats.

One could even argue that by having it forced by another government, actual acceptence of such a law would take even longer.

Complicated issue.

Well uni fee's spring to mind as a first, I was one of the lucky ones to dodge the bullet but next year the fees will go up considerably, therefore doing what? Deterring future generations from attending university - although the main difference is the size of the loan(Which they'll end up paying off for the rest of their lives) many would still be deterred by that fact alone.

-My beef with that is the fact that it benefits the rich immensely - those who pay the fees up front, they mostly afford the children to go to school at 15k/year, 9k/uni doesn't seem as bad.

Not putting any pressure in regards to the banks, bonuses et all still exist, kinda messed up when people get laid off and failing banks reward CEOs with millions of pounds worth of bonus - despite the fact that bank had reported losses and is majorly owned by the taxpayer.

Taking away perks and benefits from the poor and struggling, such as tax credit for young families - increasing the VAT to 20%, removing EMA with some other messed up scheme.

Cutting spending on NHS - it's shit enough as it is when people have to wait hours for treatment, without extra funding I don't even want to go near NHS hospital - oh and rich with insurance and private healthcare are not affected by such things by the way.

Vain leadership - ie the previous example of moving women up front whenever he does a speech to make appeal to women.

Or in general, driving a country towards benefiting those who have already managed to get somewhere and preventing those that do want to go places from going much further, and also pretty much allowing inflation to flourish, just talk no action. Unemployment figures are insanely high and increasing.

^And that's only what I can recall off the top of my head or bothered reading about.

I dunno.... compaired to countries like Greece and Italy that DIDN'T do any of that stuff before it was too late....

I would say he was thinking ahead.

Does he need excuses to cut foreign aid? Isn't it natural for anyone to want the money for their people? who would blame them really? sincere questions because the way you phrased it implies that he HAS TO give foreign aid.

Bolded: I agree. It's an interesting idea for sure but I don't think it will work. I mean even if it does social acceptance for such rights will require decades and decades. I also agree with the fact that forcing changes may have an opposite result. People are extremely intolerant to the westren values and they will reject them more if they get imposed upon them.

Despite all that, I say cut us off. Corruption rate in Jordan is ridiculous and we are not getting most of that money anyway.

Kind of an off-topic question (also for you Kaz)... How come forign aids are never mentioned in our books, news, newspapers or in any form? Shouldn't they let the people know that the west is actually helping us in somehow?  maybe that will help in closing gaps and raising tolerance and acceptance for the west.

To my knowledge given my research in the relationship between development and democracy, Aid has proven to have a positive correlation to a country's levels of democracy

Though i may be remembering the results of that study incorrectly.

Granted, aid must be judiciously applied if it is to have more than a short-term impact in people's livelihoods, and from what i've observed, many countries also recognize that, and are putting aid more on the platform of programs in sustainability or infrastructural development rather than direct lump payments

Also, a Libyan regime kindly disposed towards NATO may help Britain financially now that you lot are net importers of oil again

i don't get to do this very often, so i'll take this chance. i couldn't have said it better myself.

why stop there? impose all sorts of rights standards so then you dont give out anything unless these shit hole countries radically alter their sick ways.

People wouldn't be so poor in the developing world if it wasn't for our ridiculous protectionism (namely CAP). Thanks to CAP, we now have to pay more for our food, we pay more taxes, and the effect it has on the poorest means that we have to hand more out in aid. Fucking ridiculous.

Aid is a failed policy, anyway. The only way that countries can move forward is through free trade, enforcing the rule of law, and ending corruption. All other policies are a waste of time, money, and, most importantly, lives.

As for the matter of gay rights, I agree that our Government should be taking action to support human rights and liberty across the globe... but why single out just gay rights? And why single out just aid?