Government support for live aid - a question

simu

Government to Contribute to Band Aid Trust

Following the announcement by An Taoiseach today that the Government will make funds available to the Band Aid Trust, equivalent to the VAT receipts on the sales of the new Live Aid DVD and CDs, Conor Lenihan T.D., Minister of State for Development Cooperation and Human Rights said:

?I am delighted to confirm that the Government will be able to provide a grant to the Band Aid Trust, equivalent to the amount collected in VAT on the sales of the Live Aid DVD released earlier this week.

While it is not possible to exempt the DVD sales from VAT, an equivalent amount will be made available from the Government?s official development assistance programme, which is administered by Development Cooperation Ireland.

In the case of the earlier Live Aid recordings, a similar arrangement was put in place, and we think it is important and appropriate to do so again now.

It is wonderful to see that, so many years later, the Band Aid Trust continues to generate funds for development work. It is a testimony to the vision and hard work of those involved with the project from the beginning?, Minister Lenihan said.

source

If this money is coming from the government?s official development assistance programme, would it not have been spent on similar humanitarian efforts anyway, even if Live Aid had never existed? Or am I missing something here?

<edit> as I come to realise that this thing is called Live Aid rather than Band aid</edit>

AngelofFire

I doubt the revenue raised from VAT on the live aid would be enough to meet the 0.7% of GNP to be spent on overseas development aid that we agreed with the UN two years ago, thats a seperate issue that must be addressed anyway. If abolishing VAT on it makes it a fiver cheaper then maybe more people will buy it and there`ll be more money for humanitarian aid in the 3rd world.

pete

simu wrote:

If this money is coming from the government?s official development assistance programme.

I thought the money was coming from the VAT take on the Live Aid DVD's, e.g. Govt. takes in 1 million in VAT on Live Aid DVD sales; Govt. donates 1 million to Live Aid, and nobody touches the existing overseas development budget.

As in I thought the VAT was still being charged on it, but the Govt. was just going to give it back.

Oh innocent me.

shotamoose

I can't believe they're doing this. I can only hope that Live Aid won't sell very much, as to divert a significant amount of funds from the existing DCI budget would be bad news for a lot of people. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Completely nuts.

passive

wow... that's how i read it too. you'd like to think it isn't quite like that and we're misinterpreting. maybe that's just wishful thinking.

hopefully the tabloids will notice it and make a big deal... it's nice when they do something good.

DadaKopf

It just goes to show just how cosmetic all this official development assistance stuff often is. Obviously after the fallout from his reneging on the 0.7% a few weeks ago, this is a good high profile manoevre to get Lenihan's image back on track. It'll play to an Irish audience, but it won't fix any "damage to Ireland's international reputation".

SkepticOne

shotamoose wrote:

I can't believe they're doing this. I can only hope that Live Aid won't sell very much, as to divert a significant amount of funds from the existing DCI budget would be bad news for a lot of people. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Completely nuts.

Why? Even if it is the case that the VAT refunds are coming out of the national aid budget, it is still more money from Irish pockets going to the third world than otherwise would if Live Aid did not exist or did not sell.

I'm still not sure what the true story is though. Has it been confirmed one way or the other?

shotamoose

SkepticOne wrote:

Why? Even if it is the case that the VAT refunds are coming out of the national aid budget, it is still more money from Irish pockets going to the third world than otherwise would if Live Aid did not exist or did not sell.

Okay it was a bit harsh of me to hope that Live Aid doesn't sell well, as it's not their fault the Irish government is so short-sighted. I wish them well and all that, I'd just be worried about taking too much out of a pre-existing budget. True, the sums involved would probably be pretty small, but it's partly the principle that's so dodgy.

I'm still not sure what the true story is though. Has it been confirmed one way or the other?

Statement from Department of Foreign Affairs

Interestingly, it says a similar arrangement was put in place for previous Live Aids. I wonder if they came out of the aid budget too?

SkepticOne

shotamoose wrote:

Okay it was a bit harsh of me to hope that Live Aid doesn't sell well, as it's not their fault the Irish government is so short-sighted. I wish them well and all that, I'd just be worried about taking too much out of a pre-existing budget. True, the sums involved would probably be pretty small, but it's partly the principle that's so dodgy.

It is a bit cheap of the Government if they mean that no extra will be paid overall due to the Live Aid event but merely money will be diverted from some other part of the aid budget. If it is being done in such a dodgy matter, it is perhaps better that the Live Aid organisation is responsible for as much distribution as possible to worthy causes than the Government in which case I hope they raise as much as possible.

Statement from Department of Foreign Affairs

Interestingly, it says a similar arrangement was put in place for previous Live Aids. I wonder if they came out of the aid budget too?

Quote from press release

While it is not possible to exempt the DVD sales from VAT, an equivalent amount will be made available from the Government’s official development assistance programme, which is administered by Development Cooperation Ireland.

Although this states where the funds are being administered from, it is still possible that extra funds are being made available that will not count against the pre-agreed aid budget. I'm inclined to take a more cynical view, but I wouldn't mind clarification. I might email their press office. It might be interesting to see which other aid destinations are being cut if it is the situation that people suspect. However, I'm not quite ready to jump to conclusions at this stage.

DadaKopf

The truth is, they probably don't know themselves what aid destinations may be cut.

It could be that they'll skim a little money off the top of all of their projects or programmes. DCI runs three-year country strategies in their long-term partner countries, so spending and its destinations are more or less locked in those countries until 2005.

Or the money might be siphoned off from more well-to-do countries like those in Eastern Europe where, say, €100,000 will get you a lot less and have less of an impact than the same amount in a poor African country. Spending policy is more flexible in those countries because its based on stand-alone projects instead of integrated programmes like in their African partner countries.

Another way to do it would be to cut funding to the UN, but that'd be politically difficult.

I still don't think it makes any practical sense as it'll only upset already fragile aid programmes. The only explanation is that it makes us look good. In the meantime, we renege on our commitment to the 0.7%.

chewy

watched the docu on the first one....

great bit where Geldof argues with Thatcher over this very point... the UK gov was refusing to remove the vat, it was on the news like this, and in the end they never did they just gave the same amount back as donation afterwards, which sounds similar to this situtation...


hmm Im trying to postive to this but it all sits uneasy with me, the lyrics are truely awful... and condescending...

its seems to be of the 'buy something to save the world variety', (which all charities and fund-raisers are I guess), things like the drop the debt campaign seem to have a bit more acknowledge of world politics as opposed to 'a penny for the black babies' variety...

and then videoing the singers watching a video of starving kids so you can make em cry etc...

Sleepy

Well chewy, you've got to remember that Live Aid and Band Aid had raised over $100m by 1986. Only twenty percent of this went on immediate food relief. Ten percent was used for transport costs (some of which was used to break cartels which had increased the costs of distributing aid threefold at the time). The other 70% went on long term projects such as the construction of wells to provide clean water, providing agricultural tools and teaching etc.

Geldof himself recognised the limited value of relief aid and in fact argued wth Thatcher on another occasion over the insanity of the spending of EEC (as it was at the time) money to destroy some of our agricultural food surplus when millions were starving in Africa at the time.

While it may be slightly pointless to compare the incomes received by the various aid agencies in a given year (due to the increases that come when major crises occur). It should be remembered that Live Aid was about more than just collecting money, it was about waking up the western world to the plight of their fellow human beings in Africa. Concern's income doubled that year, Oxfam's rose three-fold. That may not have been related to Live Aid at all, though I think it's quite likely it was. Anyone who watched that day (and I was only 6 when I watched it) will never listen to The Cars' 'Drive' again without watering up.

I've heard rumblings that talks are under way about doing another Live Aid gig. Hot Press reported last month that U2 announced that should one be being arranged, they'd be touring Europe at the time and would be available a range of dates. I, for one, hope the rumours are true, and can guarantee that if I don't make the concert, it won't have been for a lack of trying.

simu

chewy wrote:

hmm Im trying to postive to this but it all sits uneasy with me, the lyrics are truely awful... and condescending...

So true, if you're not a Christian, it's of no importance. Why do we always have to descend to such levels of mawkishness when trying to do something of benefit to the human race?

mycroft

simu wrote:

So true, if you're not a Christian, it's of no importance. Why do we always have to descend to such levels of mawkishness when trying to do something of benefit to the human race?

Pop singers in mawkish sentimental lyrics shocker!

Apparently a debt relief agency came up with alternative lines because they objected to the line "where nothing ever grows" as it's not true, so they came up with alternatively lyrics you can read them in all their PC glory on the site mentioned in the quote (courtsey of the guardian's diary)

Finally, as promised, we have a sample of the alternative Band Aid lyrics offered to the World Development Movement, the body that fired off a humourless press release condemning negative Africa stereotypes in the song's lyrics. You can view them all in their excruciating glory at wdm.org.uk, but we'll play out with a cracker by Warren. "It's Christmas time / There's no need to be afraid / But last time round, we forgot to mention Aids / And crushing debt and conflict, that won't be solved with smiles of joy / These problems will go on, because of us / But say a prayer / And pray for condoms / At any time, it's hard when you're against the Vatican ..."

:rolleyes:

Look last time around Duran Duran promised to tour Ethopia for their fans their next year, such was the level of cluelessness among singers, the concept of political aware musician was the arena of the clash, the specials and billy bragg. Band aid changed that. I think earning £100million squid to go entirely to development aid, means that the Bedingfield duo get off having to understand the relationship between IMF and third world debt. It's bad enough that we have Bono chatting to Alan Greenspan and the Manic Street Preachers, the concept of a Rachel Stevens album of political pop songs terrifies me.