<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Keeping promises</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.owen.org/blog/2784/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/2784</link>
	<description>Thoughts on development and beyond</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:50:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bishop Brennan</title>
		<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/2784/comment-page-1#comment-4853</link>
		<dc:creator>Bishop Brennan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owen.org/?p=2784#comment-4853</guid>
		<description>I suspect Gordon has decided to achieve this via his promises on funding for &#039;global warming&#039;.

Either way, as you&#039;re in Ethiopia, you might be forgiven for not realising that the UK&#039;s economy is going down the toilet - so, as a hard-pressed taxpayer, my answer to this plea for even more wasteful spending (half of which goes to dictators - hence your former DFID colleagues hid telegrams to this effect from Clare Short - no point denying it, I was there) is to tell you to get it from Bono...

There is something in it for developing countries too - if our economy is stablised, then the yearly aid budget might still be worth something, rather than going down the Zimbabwe route. Better 0.5% of something than 0.7% of nothing, no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suspect Gordon has decided to achieve this via his promises on funding for &#8216;global warming&#8217;.</p>
<p>Either way, as you&#8217;re in Ethiopia, you might be forgiven for not realising that the UK&#8217;s economy is going down the toilet &#8211; so, as a hard-pressed taxpayer, my answer to this plea for even more wasteful spending (half of which goes to dictators &#8211; hence your former DFID colleagues hid telegrams to this effect from Clare Short &#8211; no point denying it, I was there) is to tell you to get it from Bono&#8230;</p>
<p>There is something in it for developing countries too &#8211; if our economy is stablised, then the yearly aid budget might still be worth something, rather than going down the Zimbabwe route. Better 0.5% of something than 0.7% of nothing, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: From Poverty to Power by Duncan Green &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Is Sen wrong on famine?; Krugman 4 Tobin; US as failing state; weasel words; China ain&#8217;t green; how Gordon can defend aid and pomo-babble: links I liked</title>
		<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/2784/comment-page-1#comment-4719</link>
		<dc:creator>From Poverty to Power by Duncan Green &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Is Sen wrong on famine?; Krugman 4 Tobin; US as failing state; weasel words; China ain&#8217;t green; how Gordon can defend aid and pomo-babble: links I liked</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owen.org/?p=2784#comment-4719</guid>
		<description>[...] Owen Barder shows Gordon Brown how he can keep his promises on aid  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Owen Barder shows Gordon Brown how he can keep his promises on aid  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Owen</title>
		<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/2784/comment-page-1#comment-4623</link>
		<dc:creator>Owen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owen.org/?p=2784#comment-4623</guid>
		<description>Max

I agree - once we get to 0.7%, it will be much harder to reverse. But it is going to be tough defending double digit increases in the aid budget when other services are going through hard(er) times.  (I worry that this will lead the Treasury to bury increases in ODA in other budgets, particularly the MOD and FCO, breaking the important and valuable tradition that the aid budget is consolidated in one government department).

I&#039;m glad you like the idea of including this in the Fiscal Responsibility Bill.  There may be an outside chance that this would be outside the scope, but (though I am not a lawyer) I cannot see how it could be.

warm regards
Owen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Max</p>
<p>I agree &#8211; once we get to 0.7%, it will be much harder to reverse. But it is going to be tough defending double digit increases in the aid budget when other services are going through hard(er) times.  (I worry that this will lead the Treasury to bury increases in ODA in other budgets, particularly the MOD and FCO, breaking the important and valuable tradition that the aid budget is consolidated in one government department).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad you like the idea of including this in the Fiscal Responsibility Bill.  There may be an outside chance that this would be outside the scope, but (though I am not a lawyer) I cannot see how it could be.</p>
<p>warm regards<br />
Owen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: max</title>
		<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/2784/comment-page-1#comment-4621</link>
		<dc:creator>max</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:31:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owen.org/?p=2784#comment-4621</guid>
		<description>I think that is a great idea Owen. I will ask number 10 about it next week. It is a real shame we won&#039;t see a full bill. At least a draft bill should mean that the 0.7% commitment gets some discussion in parliament but that is no substitute. 

The CSR has UK ODA going up to 9.1 billion pounds in 2010/11 after really strong campaigning around budget time in march of this year by a broad coalition of NGOs. there was a push from treasury to stick simply to the 0,51% promised in europe which would have meant a cut given the recession.  By our calculations this will put UK ODA at around somewhere between 0.56 and 0.58 for the year 2010/11.  

Whether this means they will meet the 0.56% for 2010 stipulated in the EU promise not guaranteed but I would not say altogether out of the question. Also As I understood it the EU promise was for all of the old member states to reach a minimum of 0.51% by 2010, with this meaning that the overall EU average would be 0.56%. The UK has promised separately to be at 0.56 though. 

All of this will not happen without a fight that is for certain.

The big question is can we get the tories in their first budget and spending review to specify the two additional increases to get us to 0.7. in 2013, and this will be harder without legislation. 

What is really interesting is that once we are at 0.7% the chances of us moving away from it are very slim- not because of political pressure necessarily, but because it means that DFID each year following 2013 will only be asking for an increase to cover inflation at budget time, and as overall dfids budget will still only be just over 1% of government spending, it is not likely to figure much in any calculations. the dangerous time is now when dfid is supposed to be getting double digit increases each year whilst other departments take cuts. 

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr_csr07_chapter1_207.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that is a great idea Owen. I will ask number 10 about it next week. It is a real shame we won&#8217;t see a full bill. At least a draft bill should mean that the 0.7% commitment gets some discussion in parliament but that is no substitute. </p>
<p>The CSR has UK ODA going up to 9.1 billion pounds in 2010/11 after really strong campaigning around budget time in march of this year by a broad coalition of NGOs. there was a push from treasury to stick simply to the 0,51% promised in europe which would have meant a cut given the recession.  By our calculations this will put UK ODA at around somewhere between 0.56 and 0.58 for the year 2010/11.  </p>
<p>Whether this means they will meet the 0.56% for 2010 stipulated in the EU promise not guaranteed but I would not say altogether out of the question. Also As I understood it the EU promise was for all of the old member states to reach a minimum of 0.51% by 2010, with this meaning that the overall EU average would be 0.56%. The UK has promised separately to be at 0.56 though. </p>
<p>All of this will not happen without a fight that is for certain.</p>
<p>The big question is can we get the tories in their first budget and spending review to specify the two additional increases to get us to 0.7. in 2013, and this will be harder without legislation. </p>
<p>What is really interesting is that once we are at 0.7% the chances of us moving away from it are very slim- not because of political pressure necessarily, but because it means that DFID each year following 2013 will only be asking for an increase to cover inflation at budget time, and as overall dfids budget will still only be just over 1% of government spending, it is not likely to figure much in any calculations. the dangerous time is now when dfid is supposed to be getting double digit increases each year whilst other departments take cuts. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr_csr07_chapter1_207.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr_csr07_chapter1_207.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil H</title>
		<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/2784/comment-page-1#comment-4614</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:02:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owen.org/?p=2784#comment-4614</guid>
		<description>Makes you wonder about the Tories&#039; pledge to commit to Labour&#039;s funding pledges to International Development.  How can you realisticly expect anyone to &quot;commit&quot; to &quot;pledges&quot; that may not be kept in any case?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Makes you wonder about the Tories&#8217; pledge to commit to Labour&#8217;s funding pledges to International Development.  How can you realisticly expect anyone to &#8220;commit&#8221; to &#8220;pledges&#8221; that may not be kept in any case?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Atheist Missionary</title>
		<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/2784/comment-page-1#comment-4611</link>
		<dc:creator>The Atheist Missionary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:11:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owen.org/?p=2784#comment-4611</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure about the UK but we have reached the point in North America where the electorate&#039;s view has become so jaundiced that they no longer expect politicians to keep their promises.  The issue came to a head in the province of Ontario in 2003 when the Liberal government led by current premier Dalton McGuinty campaigned with a promise that they would not raise taxes. McGuinty even went so far as to sign a &quot;Taxpayer Protection Promise&quot; to that effect with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (&quot;CTF&quot;).  McGuinty won a majority government on the strength of that promise and it only took him a few weeks to break it when he introduced the Ontario Health Tax.  The CTF sued the government for breach of contract and the case was dismissed on the basis of the following reasoning by Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Rouleau: &quot;it is not the role of the courts - to intervene to enforce - promises and pledges. Rather, the remedy is for the electorate to consider and weigh the record of each candidate and party at the time of voting and in the intervening period to trust that the power entrusted to minister will be &#039;exercised from time to time as occasion may require in the public interest.&#039;&quot;  In other words, Canadian politicians are free to break their election promises at their whim.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure about the UK but we have reached the point in North America where the electorate&#8217;s view has become so jaundiced that they no longer expect politicians to keep their promises.  The issue came to a head in the province of Ontario in 2003 when the Liberal government led by current premier Dalton McGuinty campaigned with a promise that they would not raise taxes. McGuinty even went so far as to sign a &#8220;Taxpayer Protection Promise&#8221; to that effect with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (&#8220;CTF&#8221;).  McGuinty won a majority government on the strength of that promise and it only took him a few weeks to break it when he introduced the Ontario Health Tax.  The CTF sued the government for breach of contract and the case was dismissed on the basis of the following reasoning by Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Rouleau: &#8220;it is not the role of the courts &#8211; to intervene to enforce &#8211; promises and pledges. Rather, the remedy is for the electorate to consider and weigh the record of each candidate and party at the time of voting and in the intervening period to trust that the power entrusted to minister will be &#8216;exercised from time to time as occasion may require in the public interest.&#8217;&#8221;  In other words, Canadian politicians are free to break their election promises at their whim.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

