Where's the money been found.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I don't care, we should not send that amount of money to a country, when we are suffering also.llWe are being told that we have to make cutbacks due to money that has been spent in this country, an yet they can send that amount of money abroad, they can quite easily stop or half that amount to put back into the economy, as an old motto is 'whats good for the goose, is good for the ganda"

I think those three words sum it all up.

You don't see the bigger picture, which would show that there is some self-interest in this from our side as well, nor do you see the humanitarian side.

On the humanitarian side of the discussion I frankly am disgusted and flabbergasted that you equate the cuts in our public services, which are required even if this aid were put back in as the deficits are structural not one-off, with the suffering and death this aid will alleviate in Africa. Oh no we'll have to pay a touch more tax and services will have to go back to where they were in 2003-5, clearly comparable to a slow painful death from Malaria, watching children die and be orphaned.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

and services will have to go back to where they were in 2003-5

I agree with all else you're saying, but just picking up on the point above (as I wondered about it before): what does that mean exactly? The same level of service as in 2003-2005, or spending just as much money as we did back then. If it's the latter it makes the statement a rather pointless euphemism, as it means a severe cut in actual service levels after inflation correction.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

I agree with all else you're saying, but just picking up on the point above (as I wondered about it before): what does that mean exactly? The same level of service as in 2003-2005, or spending just as much money as we did back then. If it's the latter it makes the statement a rather pointless euphemism, as it means a severe cut in actual service levels after inflation correction.

Spending as much as a % of GDP - so inflation irrelevant.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Spending as much as a % of GDP - so inflation irrelevant.

Ok. That's fair enough (and does suggest spending as a % of GDP has increased quite a lot over the last 6-7 years). Mind you, UK spending as a % of GDP isn't particularly high traditionally.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

Ok. That's fair enough (and does suggest spending as a % of GDP has increased quite a lot over the last 6-7 years). Mind you, UK spending as a % of GDP isn't particularly high historically.

Sadly it is high relative to the tax intake, that's the rub.

Historically it has been high though not so much recently. Remains high relative to Canada, USA, Australia, etc, nations we've more in common with than Europe to be honest.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Sadly it is high relative to the tax intake, that's the rub.

Historically it has been high though not so much recently. Remains high relative to Canada, USA, Australia, etc, nations we've more in common with than Europe to be honest.

All very interesting, but probably better reserved for a thread that's not about foreign aid. Ta for the answer

[Arthurgray50@blu]

My entire point is this, I feel very sad for countries that need humantarian aid, where you see children dying every minute to due sickness, but there are other countries in the world, that can supply financial aid.

BUT it was stated that food aid going to some countries was being hijached and being sold on the black market.

We already supply millions of pounds each year in aid, what l am saying is that, if this country is making cutbacks and WE are facing losing our jobs, then surely they can reduce this amount of money, being given away.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

... if this country is making cutbacks ....

I'm not sure we are as poor as you are making out. For example, on average, each household in Britain spends (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa...ending2009.pdf):

£10 per week on booze and fags
£52 per week on recreation and culture
£29 per week on restaurants and hotels

Isn't it worth cutting back a bit on some of the above, and helping out families who are living in the open without food or fresh water? Or children dying from malaria?

Think about it the next time you have a take away fish and chips.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I'm not sure we are as poor as you are making out. For example, on average, each household in Britain spends (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa...ending2009.pdf):

£10 per week on booze and fags
£52 per week on recreation and culture
£29 per week on restaurants and hotels

I wish!!!

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I wish!!!

Presumably you're not average.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Presumably you're not average.

That's about what I spend on my weekly shopping..

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

That's about what I spend on my weekly shopping..

£52.50 per week for food and non-alcoholic drinks.

Actually, for Expenditure of one man one woman non-retired households (or am I being presumptuous?) the figures are:

1 Food & non-alcoholic drinks £53.10
2 Alcoholic drinks, tobacco & narcotics £13.40
3 Clothing & footwear £18.70

4 Housing (net), fuel & power £52.80

5 Household goods & services £26.90

6 Health £7.40
7 Transport £64.90
8 Communication £12.80
9 Recreation & culture £53.80
10 Education [£1.30]
11 Restaurants & hotels £26.90

12 Miscellaneous goods & services £28.80

Which comes to a total of £415.70 per week.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

4 Housing (net), fuel & power £52.80

I wish! Stick a 3 in front of that and you're getting there

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I wish! Stick a 3 in front of that and you're getting there

Per week?

---------- Post added at 22:00 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

Originally Posted by TheNorm

£52.50 per week for food and non-alcoholic drinks.

Actually, for Expenditure of one man one woman non-retired households (or am I being presumptuous?) the figures are:

1 Food & non-alcoholic drinks £53.10
2 Alcoholic drinks, tobacco & narcotics £13.40 [SIZE=1][FONT=FrutigerLT-Bold]
3 Clothing & footwear £18.70

How weird is that! Imagine spending more on clothes and shoes than on booze fags and dope! Some people have their priorities severely mixed up...

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

Per week?

---------- Post added at 22:00 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------



How weird is that! Imagine spending more on clothes and shoes than on booze fags and dope! Some people have their priorities severely mixed up...

Yes, I'm in London, enough said.