Thanks to the design of parliamentary procedures in Britain, Boris Johnson was able to avoid an embarrassing conflict with lawmakers from his party over the UK government’s foreign aid budget. But Parliament was able to resolve the issue, and many more sections were formed regarding the financial priorities of the government and the Conservatives.
While Johnson is keeping the opposition Labor party vigilant for the time being, he should also keep an eye on the enemies at home. The relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is often tumultuous, and you can ask Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who is currently the treasurer of the treasury, a strong man with his views on the budget. , Harsher views than the Prime Minister’s.
The decision was embarrassing because 30 Conservative MPs, including several former cabinet ministers, agreed when Johnson announced his intention to cancel cuts to the country’s foreign aid budget, and Johnson held the “Seven Group” summit in Cornwall. Ruled invalid because it was not sufficient for the legislative rules in question.
The government argues that the 2015 law allows 0.7 percent of GDP to be spent on foreign aid, allowing some changes in exceptional circumstances such as an epidemic, and reducing the percentage to 0.5 percent.
Ministers sent a sarcastic message to defend the decision to reduce foreign aid, which contained brief words: “Those closest to you benefit first.” Opponents of the cuts, on the other hand, say the move is not worth the pain, and that in order to provide 4 4 billion ($ 5.7 billion) in savings, Britain has promised to help those in need abroad who have failed, breaking its commitment, sacrificing the soft power that comes from being a big donor and closing the financial gap Increases the opportunity for China to reduce.
Hoyle allowed MPs to hold an urgent 3-hour debate on the issue so the issue would not go away so protesters could present their case. He pointed out that if the government refuses to participate it will find other ways to give lawmakers a chance.
Rishi Sunak, treasury adviser, said it would appear that political aid, which is not subject to foreign aid cuts, is a relatively cheap way to send a signal that free spending for the epidemic period must somehow be calculated. But the government that promoted the post-Brexit outlook for Britain worldwide ended up with a very narrow vision.
Other spending decisions are also controversial within the party. Johnson was forced to accept the resignation of Kevin Collins, director of the UK Scholarship, after the government approved only a small portion of his proposed aid to help underprivileged British children in school. The $ 1.4 billion funding announcement for teacher training and coaching came as a shock because Collins originally proposed a $ 15 billion budget. He did not expect to get everything he wanted, but getting only 10 percent indicates that the government is not serious about its ambitions. Collins resigned, saying the fund “underestimates the importance of education”.
Johnson’s recent election victory was based on his promise to “improve” struggling English communities because he defended part of the cost of education, saying “I hope a lot more is coming”. But can it only give confidence to a prime minister with a parliamentary majority?
It is no secret that Johnson and Treasury adviser Sunak differ on monetary policy. The Prime Minister is making big promises that are in line with his promise to use the government to promote development, investment and public services. Sunak is aware of the need to maintain Britain’s credibility in the financial markets as the emergency phase of the epidemic draws to a close.
Traditional Conservatives The Conservative Party is equally divided as it worries about the mountain of debt built up during the Govt-19 eruption and the possibility of government assistance becoming a habit.
While Johnson’s government has a reputation for delivering on the promises of the report, his promise to boost the economy in the poorer parts of the north of the country will be a long – term goal against which he will ultimately be judged.
Rule according to Nigel Lawson, President of the Presidency under Margaret Thatcher. There is a long record that prime ministers have chosen their advisers, which rarely succeeds.
All published articles refer only to the opinion of its authors.
“Coffee trailblazer. Social media ninja. Unapologetic web guru. Friendly music fan. Alcohol fanatic.”