What a hypocrite

Originally Posted by AdamD

I agree we can do both, but I think 50% of the aid budget should be used for our own people.

That's what the other 99% is for.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You do realise that politicians are full of bull plop don't you, going up, if it's going anywhere it's going down

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...m-6282998.html

yeah ,you may want have a look at the real figures

http://www.ukan.org.uk/index.php?id=87

it's gone up every year for 5 years while almost every departmental budget in the uk has gone down

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Paul M

No, we dont. We have an obligation to help our own.
Its about time we stopped worrying about other countries and sorted out our own.

Indeed

We spend 99% of the money on 'our own'. What's wrong with 1% for the rest? Morally what's the difference between a pensioner in the UK or a staving child in Africa (see, I can use emotive examples too)? Why is it being presented as either/or when this isn't the case.

And again. We've benefited from exploiting other people and countries both in the past and even now we're happy to overlook exploitation and abuse for cheap products or oil so I really don't think we can go around claiming some sort of moral high ground about helping our own. We would be a lot worse off if these things were really about morals.

[alferret]

I was always taught that charity begins at home!
Obviously preceding governments and this one would rather give away our hard earned tax £'s let's face it those in power have never had to live on minimum wage and have little if no real idea of money and how it works.

Do/should we feel obliged because of our past for what we took from other countries or should we now say "enough is enough"
IIRC we give 0.5% of GDP to foreign aid, that is about £10-12 billion a year and rising all the time, one wonders what the actual return for this for this type of "investment"

Oh and Arfur, congrats on sussing out linkages long may you remember

Originally Posted by Damien

What's wrong with 1% for the rest?

Its 1% too high is what's wrong with it.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

yeah ,you may want have a look at the real figures

http://www.ukan.org.uk/index.php?id=87

it's gone up every year for 5 years while almost every departmental budget in the uk has gone down

There not the real figures, well they might be but as with everything the devils in the detail, for a start there's no mention of tied aid, it including our contribution to the emergency aid disaster relief fund and the training of police in Afghanistan and Iraq for instance.

---------- Post added at 01:25 ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul M

Its 1% too high is what's wrong with it.

In your opinion, personally I'd like to know how we've come by this 0.7% figure, it seems to have been spouted about for years if not decades now, it seems like a strange figure to have come up with and stuck to.

Originally Posted by Paul M

Its 1% too high is what's wrong with it.

Yeah I gathered that but why shouldn't be donate foreign aid? Isn't it fair that those of us lucky to live in a country that has wealth (some at the expense of others) donate some of it to those without? I mean a large degree of the relative wealth we have is a product of luck, it's certainly luck that caused us to be born here rather than in a place where death is everywhere.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

There not the real figures, well they might be but as with everything the devils in the detail, for a start there's no mention of tied aid, it including our contribution to the emergency aid disaster relief fund and the training of police in Afghanistan and Iraq for instance.
.

It doesn't make any difference where the money is going the foreign aid figures have and are continuing to rise

Why would the government doctor/embellish /lie about figures so that it makes them look bad to their own party and the electorate

When you consider the amount of money given to people coming into the country from these war torn starving countries and those that aren't, shouldn't that be considered as aid ?.All the asylum seekers claiming benefits and taking housing is that not aid ? and how much would that increase the figures .The true aid figures are far greater than the official figures ,you know how i know that ? because politicians are "full of bull plop"

[Arthurgray50@blu]

In this country, we have tv shows asking for donations for charities - good thing and well applauded.

BUT, David Cameron has a morale right as PM to look after the people of this country who voted for his party to get elected, however since he came into power his government has made severe cutbacks without a thought for the voter.

But this news is an insult to the voter, we have vulnerable people, homeless people and above all we have OAP that are counting there pennies to save money for heating there homes during the bitter winter months ahead.

How many people will die due to this, And yet David Cameron is quite prepared to give billions in overseas aid to countries that simply don't need it. Yes there are countries that have starving people, yes there are vulnerable people that are being hit by the governments of those countries that are corrupt and spend OUR money on there own corrupt business.

Two years ago we sent a convoy over to a foreign country in aid, it got ambushed and it was found that the 'aid supply' had found its way onto the black market, and didn't get to its destination.

We MUST look after our own people before even thinking about overseas. Even if they halved the aid, and put it on the UK voter, at least that would help.

But there again Cameron thinks only of himself.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well the UK has made a handsome profit from exploiting places around the world so we probably do have a moral obligation to help the world's poor...

That's one way of looking at it but when does that historical obligation end?
When do you suggest that the UK's population & government has finally atoned for past sins?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Damien

We spend 99% of the money on 'our own'. What's wrong with 1% for the rest?

In an ideal world nothing. When the amount spent at home is being reduced the thought of spending increasing amounts in other countries, in some cases countries that really don't appear to need it, is an issue.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Derek

In an ideal world nothing. When the amount spent at home is being reduced the thought of spending increasing amounts in other countries, in some cases countries that really don't appear to need it, is an issue.

And this is where it goes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-dev...y-key-datasets

What does this mean for the UK taxpayer? With a population of about 62.6 million, last year's £8.57bn spend works out at roughly £137 per head.

That would have paid for many things in my house that at the moment have to save up to buy.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

That's one way of looking at it but when does that historical obligation end?
When do you suggest that the UK's population & government has finally atoned for past sins?

Well when we stop continuing to exploit other countries for their oil or cheap labour might be a start. My reason for bringing those up is not that they should be the reasons for our aid but that we cannot pretend that to cut Foreign aid is a moral obligation. The moral obligation would be to stop benefiting from exploiting workforces around the world, from oppressive regimes whose oil helps our economy, and to recognise that we're in a very privileged position to be born where we were. We should also note that part of our wealth and heritage has come from our past conquests of other nations. So when we try to pretend that cutting all help to other countries is moral, well, it's kind of hard to say it with a straight face.

People keeping say we have problems at home and we do, and most of our tax income is indeed spent on these problems. A previous poster mentioned of the horror of seeing news stories of vulnerable people dying of cold or hunger in this country. The reason that is a news story is because it's shocking to us, it isn't a common event, and it means the systems to do actually have to place to help failed. When a child dies in Africa because of easily treatable illnesses, hunger, a lack of water and so on it isn't news. It happens every single day and it happens hundreds of times each day.

We should help them because 1) we can 2) it's a small amount of money that would save thousands of lives 3) because the only difference between us and them is where we were born.

We should also help our own poor. So let's raise taxes and protest the cuts to vital services. People with disabilities are cutting their benefits and other services to help them cut without much concern from everyone else. So let's start there.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

And this is where it goes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-dev...y-key-datasets



That would have paid for many things in my house that at the moment have to save up to buy.

Nothing especially wrong with that list. India is being cut. Some of this aid comes back remember so how much we spend isn't a accurate figure.

How much good is actually done though .One year we give loads of money to country A ,we save some lives and a couple of years down the line that same country is getting more because they are back to square one .There isn't a year that goes by without some famine or war in countries that have already had millions from us .