Maybe the government should stop the aid budget being drip dripped into Africa, where it can do little ultimate good, and save it for macro events like this.
They don't actually need money at the moment in Haiti, in fact they need things that are already manufactured and available in the world, like food, clothes, tents, clean water.

I am not sure why they want the man in the street to put money in a bowl for this purpose, when the banks could be bailed out with absolutely mega trillions without the batting of an eyelid.

I don't like foreign aid in general, in Australia's case it actually helps us directly by making us the Big guys in the South Pacific, many countries depend on both our aid and trade for their economies, in return they remain marginally stable and let us take their gas and oil (booya). In the UK's case I don't think any aid should be given unless there is a disaster such as Haiti, or if it is given, it's more of 'traded', for example Britain buying West African oil fields.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

With what has happened in Haiti, it's got me thinking. I am very much against any foreign aid regardless of the disaster. I believe the individual should be given the option to donate to a foreign charity and the government should not be allowed to give OUR money away. We are already in horrible debt and to give away even more money away is just very bad housekeeping. I feel bitterly sorry for the people of Haiti, however, surely the choice to donate should be made by the individual !!

Bang on! It is the same me going to see my bank manager, with a huge overdraft, then asking to borrow £50,000 over x amount of years - AND THEN GIVING IT ALL TO OXFAM! I would probably be cetified insane; Gordon Brown does exactly this, through. Only much, much, more, crazy!

Reference: overseas aid.
Charity is alright in its right place - I have given on many occassions to different charities. But when it runs into billions and billions, that is madness. Individuals donate huge amounts: Bill Gates $four hundred million, fine that"s his money (he"s worth $32 billion). Gordon Brown on the other hand is very good at spending other peoples money. £40 million alone on mosqutio nets. Reportably hundreds of billions of pounds in total, besides the US, we must be the biggest contributor. This is money which could have helped the NHS, our schools, our old people, Police to actually be able answer peoples calls, when they call 999, our own people in disasters like Boscastle and our own people living on the breadline. I am sorry - BUT CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME! WE DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DOLE OUT MONEY ON THIS SCALE!

Originally Posted by octopus

Reference: overseas aid.
Charity is alright in its right place - I have given on many occassions to different charities. But when it runs into billions and billions, that is madness. Individuals donate huge amounts: Bill Gates $four hundred million, fine that"s his money (he"s worth $32 billion). Gordon Brown on the other hand is very good at spending other peoples money. £40 million alone on mosqutio nets. Reportably hundreds of billions of pounds in total, besides the US, we must be the biggest contributor. This is money which could have helped the NHS, our schools, our old people, Police to actually be able answer peoples calls, when they call 999, our own people in disasters like Boscastle and our own people living on the breadline. I am sorry - BUT CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME! WE DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO DOLE OUT MONEY ON THIS SCALE!

Hi Octopus. I think your financial wires are getting crossed. The British Government have increased the British Taxpayers donation from an initial £6m TO £20m. In addition the British public have voluntarily donated, as of yesterday, a further £10m. In terms of the national debt of £176billion ranked up by Labour, this is a tiny drop in the ocean. To put it in perspective that is around £1.26p per family compared with around £12000 of national debt.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Hi Octopus. I think your financial wires are getting crossed. The British Government have increased the British Taxpayers donation from an initial £6m TO £20m. In addition the British public have voluntarily donated, as of yesterday, a further £10m. In terms of the national debt of £176billion ranked up by Labour, this is a tiny drop in the ocean. To put it in perspective that is around £1.26p per family compared with around £12000 of national debt.

Beside the point as far as I am concerned; still a lot our cash being used through. Untill we are out of dept - £1.26 too many, (if that is the true fiquare), and every penny should be given to our people, and services. I would dispute the fiqure of a £176 billion of dept, as I have heard it is a lot more than that.

Originally Posted by octopus

Beside the point as far as I am concerned; still a lot our cash being used through. Untill we are out of dept - £1.26 too many, (if that is the true fiquare), and every penny should be given to our people, and services. I would dispute the fiqure of a £176 billion of dept, as I have heard it is a lot more than that.

It is generally accepted that there are approximately 16m households in the UK, hence the £1.26p 'taxpayer contribution' per household.

You are quite right about the UK national (public sector) debt which stands at £830 billion (or £1340 billion if you include future unfunded public sector pensions). My financial wires were crossed. I meant the national budget deficit which stands at around £176m.

Whilst I agree with a number of your views, on this occasion I consider it is parsimonious to resent such a modest contribution by the British taxpayer as a contribution to alleviate the suffering caused by such a massive natural disaster.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

It is generally accepted that there are approximately 16m households in the UK, hence the £1.26p 'taxpayer contribution' per household.

You are quite right about the UK national (public sector) debt which stands at £830 billion (or £1340 billion if you include future unfunded public sector pensions). My financial wires were crossed. I meant the national budget deficit which stands at around £176m.

Whilst I agree with a number of your views, on this occasion I consider it is parsimonious to resent such a modest contribution by the British taxpayer as a contribution to alleviate the suffering caused by such a massive natural disaster.

My heart does go out to the third world, but we really can"t keep bailing them out. Hati, yes is perhaps a one off, and I was really talking more generally about third world aid, which has been a rope around our neck for decades, and which is, beyond a joke in our present financial position. It is the same as me and you going to our banks and asking for a loan, whilst heavly in dept - then giving it to Oxfam; it would be crazy. Sorry, you sort your own financial problems out first, you sort your own country out first. THAT IS WHAT A UK GOVERMENT IS PAID TO DO! whether that is Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or indeed, UKIP. However, Lord Pearson is the only leader of these parties likely to do that, mind you. When we are in the black, then we will see how we can help. Untill then, all payments of this nature should be through the charites, by donations by the public - and the British people are generous to disasters like Hati.

Originally Posted by octopus

My heart does go out to the third world, but we really can"t keep bailing them out. Hati, yes is perhaps a one off, and I was really talking more generally about third world aid, which has been a rope around our neck for decades, and which is, beyond a joke in our present financial position. It is the same as me and you going to our banks and asking for a loan, whilst heavly in dept - then giving it to Oxfam; it would be crazy. Sorry, you sort your own financial problems out first, you sort your own country out first. THAT IS WHAT A UK GOVERMENT IS PAID TO DO! whether that is Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or indeed, UKIP. However, Lord Pearson is the only leader of these parties likely to do that, mind you. When we are in the black, then we will see how we can help. Untill then, all payments of this nature should be through the charites, by donations by the public - and the British people are generous to disasters like Hati.

I have to say I do agree with you on this. In general I don't think we should be paying for any overseas aid unless it's tied in with specific trade deals which will benefit the UK. Given the financial mess that this government has got us into, to just go handing out aid money in the way that is has been in the past is ridiculous in my opinion, however I will qualify that, as Octopus has said, where one-off payments as a direct result of natural disasters such as the one in Haiti are concerned. If people want to respond to charity appeals for third world aid, great, but why should the government take it on themselves to make donations on our behalf?

Originally Posted by Midas

I have to say I do agree with you on this. In general I don't think we should be paying for any overseas aid unless it's tied in with specific trade deals which will benefit the UK. Given the financial mess that this government has got us into, to just go handing out aid money in the way that is has been in the past is ridiculous in my opinion, however I will qualify that, as Octopus has said, where one-off payments as a direct result of natural disasters such as the one in Haiti are concerned. If people want to respond to charity appeals for third world aid, great, but why should the government take it on themselves to make donations on our behalf?

In principle I have some sympathy with your view. However with regard to massive natural disasters like the Haiti earthquake I feel that the world has a moral obligation to respond from a humanitarian viewpoint. However much of an economic mess this government has got us into, it does not bear comparison with the imminent life or death situation which millions of Haitians are currently facing. Even the USA, hardly renowned for their humanitarian aid unless there is a political reward in it for them, are pouring considerable resources into the area. I will therefore have to agree to differ from you and Midas on this particular issue.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Hi Octopus. I think your financial wires are getting crossed. The British Government have increased the British Taxpayers donation from an initial £6m TO £20m. In addition the British public have voluntarily donated, as of yesterday, a further £10m. In terms of the national debt of £176billion ranked up by Labour, this is a tiny drop in the ocean. To put it in perspective that is around £1.26p per family compared with around £12000 of national debt.

Sinic, that may be true figures for Haiti, but..

Originally Posted by inthenews.co.uk

Chancellor Alistair Darling has been urged not to implement big cuts in overseas aid in next week's Budget.

Reports suggest Mr Darling is considering cutting up to £860 million-a-year in planned aid spending.

The charity Oxfam has today warned such cuts would represent a betrayal of the millions of poor people around the world suffering as a result of the global recession.

In its 2007 spending review, the UK government pledged to provide £7.5 billion in overseas aid during 2009-10, but Oxfam claims the figure could be cut to £6.6bn next year.

Max Lawson, Oxfam senior policy advisor, said: "The government should not use the economic recession and statistical sleight of hand as excuses to cut aid to poor countries at the very time when they need it most.

"If all rich countries break their promises in this way, the $50 billion promised for developing countries at Gleneagles [G8 Summit] will be reduced by almost a fifth to just $41bn.

I think £7.5 Billion equates to £468.75 for every household in the country based on the 16 million household figure you quoted.

Originally Posted by Department for International Development

The government has committed £7.8billion to foreign aid for 2010-2011, up from £5.5billion in 2008-2009. This will increase further in the 2011-2012 fiscal year to £8.4billion and is expected to increase to £9.1billion in 2012-2013 reaching £10billion by 2015

The amounts given to major disasters are indeed drops in the Ocean...the ocean of tax payers money given away by these plebs!

It is time to close the tap and get our own house in order. Charity is fine if you can afford it, but when there are people starving in the UK, going without adequate homes and basic amenities, then this is not charity, but criminal negligence by the Government.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Sinic, that may be true figures for Haiti, but..



I think £7.5 Billion equates to £468.75 for every household in the country based on the 16 million household figure you quoted.



The amounts given to major disasters are indeed drops in the Ocean...the ocean of tax payers money given away by these plebs!

It is time to close the tap and get our own house in order. Charity is fine if you can afford it, but when there are people starving in the UK, going without adequate homes and basic amenities, then this is not charity, but criminal negligence by the Government.

My post and figures related solely to Haiti.

In general I think you have a valid point, in that regular overseas aid programmes should be based on what we can afford and if we can afford less then we should reduce the budget accordingly. Those who have strong convictions about overseas aid should make their own personal sacrifices, and donate through bonafide aid organisations and charities to salve their conscience at being fortunate.

However natural disasters occur which must surely eclipse national interests in the short term, and on humanitarian grounds alone there needs to be a global response. The cost of responding to disasters such as Haiti and the Asian Tsunami are miniscule compared with our budget deficit, let alone our national debt and that was my point.

Regarding the welfare problems in Britain, many of these have come about because of a wholly ineffective immigration policy of this wholly ineffective government. I personally think that there is a strong argument that overseas aid should be provided, instead of welfare support for immigrants once they have arrived in our country, not as well as.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

My post and figures related solely to Haiti.

I thought that was the case

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

In general I think you have a valid point, in that regular overseas aid programmes should be based on what we can afford and if we can afford less then we should reduce the budget accordingly. Those who have strong convictions about overseas aid should make their own personal sacrifices, and donate through bonafide aid organisations and charities to salve their conscience at being fortunate.

At the moment the country cannot afford a pot to piss in, so all aid should be stopped.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

However natural disasters occur which must surely eclipse national interests in the short term, and on humanitarian grounds alone there needs to be a global response. The cost of responding to disasters such as Haiti and the Asian Tsunami are miniscule compared with our budget deficit, let alone our national debt and that was my point.

I agree here, earthquakes, volcanic eruption and the like are not something anyone has any control over and thus it would be prudent for the UK to set a little money aside for immediate Emergency Aid in the event of Natural Disaster. All other assistance should come from people who feel a compunction to help.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Regarding the welfare problems in Britain, many of these have come about because of a wholly ineffective immigration policy of this wholly ineffective government. I personally think that there is a strong argument that overseas aid should be provided, instead of welfare support for immigrants once they have arrived in our country, not as well as.

I think it is a bit harsh to blame all the problem of this country on immigration policy and the current shower. This is a problem that goes back a very long way that all governments fail to truly address in the way that is needed. I would give no aid to any immigrants, they either arrive here with enough money and resources to support themselves for 12 months or they go home. If they fail to work in that 12 months and run out of money then they go home...that simple. It's the rules all other countries applies.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

I think it is a bit harsh to blame all the problem of this country on immigration policy and the current shower. This is a problem that goes back a very long way that all governments fail to truly address in the way that is needed. I would give no aid to any immigrants, they either arrive here with enough money and resources to support themselves for 12 months or they go home. If they fail to work in that 12 months and run out of money then they go home...that simple. It's the rules all other countries applies.

I don't for a moment suggest all, or even most, of our social problems and the costs that they incur, are related to the lack of a cohesive immigration policy just, as I said, many of them.

I am at a loss to understand why we permit comparatively uncontrolled immigration into our country, when we already have more unemployment than jobs, a mountain of national debt, insufficient tax revenues to meet our existing welfare, health, educational, transport, policing and military obligations for those of us already living here, let alone any surplus to reduce our annual budget deficit and national debt.

In order to qualify for residency I would suggest that the applicant should possess skills which we actually require in our economy, in addition to being able to demonstrate an ability to be self supporting during their period in this country, and an undertaking to abide by our laws and conventions whilst resident. Applications for naturalisation should be based on a similar but more rigorous criteria.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

At the moment the country cannot afford a pot to piss in, so all aid should be stopped.

Vulgar, but succinct, and I have to agree entirely.
Foreign aid should come purely from voluntary contributions, then there is less political slant applied to the aid.

Originally Posted by Barry

Vulgar, but succinct, and I have to agree entirely.
Foreign aid should come purely from voluntary contributions, then there is less political slant applied to the aid.

You are correct Barry....I should word things a little better to get my point out without sinking to vulgarity.

As for the Aid, I totally agree, but sadly even the voluntary Aid has a slant to it. I think it is only organisations like The International Red Cross and other medical ones that are wholly independent of political or religious bias. When I first got divorced I was a little low and feeling sorry for myself, so decided the best way was to help others but still do my job...I found a job on the net which was almost but not quite volunteer. It involved training locals in Kenya to be electricians. I thought this was great, helps the individual to improve themselves, they in turn help their family and their community and so on.

I was turned down on the basis I was not a practising Christian...It seems Christian Aid has strings attached to!

I have no problem with our government giving aid on our behalf in cases of emergency.The people of Hiati were dying,they were burried under their houses ,do you think they had time for us to have a whipp round? Having said that one governing body should collect and dissperse all aid to the third world including an emergancy fund .The biggest problem faced in disarster areas has been the number of different agencies falling over themselves to spend our donations

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

I have no problem with our government giving aid on our behalf in cases of emergency.The people of Hiati were dying,they were burried under their houses ,do you think they had time for us to have a whipp round? Having said that one governing body should collect and dissperse all aid to the third world including an emergancy fund .The biggest problem faced in disarster areas has been the number of different agencies falling over themselves to spend our donations

I know if does vary considerably, but one central body would also eliminate the problem of how much charity money for overseas aid actually reaches its destination. I haven't got any accurate figures, but I have heard from a colleague in a good position to know that it can be as low as just 20% of total donations, the remainder being wasted on multiple levels of administration, incompetence and sometimes outright theft.

Originally Posted by Midas

I know if does vary considerably, but one central body would also eliminate the problem of how much charity money for overseas aid actually reaches its destination. I haven't got any accurate figures, but I have heard from a colleague in a good position to know that it can be as low as just 20% of total donations, the remainder being wasted on multiple levels of administration, incompetence and sometimes outright theft.

Isn't that supposed to be part of what the UN is for?

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Isn't that supposed to be part of what the UN is for?

Yeah but at what point does the UN ever do what it's supposed to do?

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Isn't that supposed to be part of what the UN is for?

It does, but to be honest I really don't know where the funding for UN aid comes from or how efficient it is. If it's like much of the other parts of that organisation I wouldn't hold out much hope it's either efficient or effective. I was thinking more of one central body who could co-ordinate private charitable aid operations; at the very least just having one body, even one body per country, would eliminate a huge amount of duplicated administration and cost.

Very interesting comments here, I wonder if you would like to share your opinions on exactly this topic in a survey I am conducting? I would really appreciate your responses. The survey is online at https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=9805

Originally Posted by uctq085

Very interesting comments here, I wonder if you would like to share your opinions on exactly this topic in a survey I am conducting? I would really appreciate your responses. The survey is online at https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=9805

I usually get paid to participate in marketing surveys -- which is what this is.

The great thing about the gov giving our money in aid is that they ain't blowing a significant proportion on marketing and admin.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Isn't that supposed to be part of what the UN is for?

If you refer to; "...wasted on multiple levels of administration, incompetence and sometimes outright theft.", then you are correct. Apparently that is exactly what the UN is for.

Originally Posted by Don

If you refer to; "...wasted on multiple levels of administration, incompetence and sometimes outright theft.", then you are correct. Apparently that is exactly what the UN is for.

It is very difficult to get aid to where it is needed in a way that ensures results.

For example I believe Wateraid provides equipment for pumping water from wells which they construct themselves, and know are working when they leave.

I used to visit schools in parts of Africa, deliberately taking redundant reading and exercise books from my children's schools, since I knew these to be vital. If I returned sometimes months or years later, I sometimes discovered they had sold the books to buy other desperately needed items such as food for their midday meals. On other occasions the items donated were stolen, and sold to provide beer. It is therefore vital that the aid is administered by someone locally who can account for where the 'aid' goes. This is where Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) is so useful in that someone from our own country monitors what goes on.

About 20 years ago I researched the accounts of some major British charities; from the scant information available before the internet, many had not complied with the law requiring regular posting of accounts with our government, and frequently those that did revealed high expenditure on advertising and administration (commonly well over 50%), because without that the income would severely diminish.

As everybody’s knows the Marshal Plan was like the granddaddy of all foreign aid programs. It is where American money was given to the Europeans to rebuild their economy after WWII.

I read a good article a few months ago that suggested one of the reasons for the post WWII shift of European countries to socialism is the fact they got American welfare payments under the Marshal Plan and developed an entitlement mentality.

Originally Posted by flash

As everybody’s knows the Marshal Plan was like the granddaddy of all foreign aid programs. It is where American money was given to the Europeans to rebuild their economy after WWII.

I read a good article a few months ago that suggested one of the reasons for the post WWII shift of European countries to socialism is the fact they got American welfare payments under the Marshal Plan and developed an entitlement mentality.

Yes, well having seen the kind of websites that you consider reliable, I don't find your anecdote hard to believe.


Anyways, the reason that the conservatives have ring-fenced foreign aid, is that from a conservative/capitalist point of view, it is a wonderfully sensible long term investment.
Those of us in the first world owe our wonderful standard of living to trade, and the fact that our countries trade with each other. As the money goes around and around it creates wealth. The more countries there are to trade with, the more the money moves around and the better off we all are.

Countries in the third world contribute to this cycle very little. If they are too poor, they can't buy from us, and without industry and innovation, there is nothing we want from them (Except natural resources, but that is another issue that I'll come to in a mo). It makes sense to help these countries to get a leg up, and to develop so they can join us in global trade. Furthermore, poverty leads to political instability, and even social and religious upheaval, which is also bad for business (except the arms business).

So it does make sense and it is a good thing to continue with foreign aid, especially when that aid is going to former colonies.

My only fear is that we use foreign aid as a form of economic warfare to deliberately wreck local industries and create dependencies... or when it is given with strings attached that force the recipients to allow UK companies to exploit their natural resources. This kind of thing has been going on for years, and although we are not the worst culprits by a long chalk, the UK isn't exactly innocent.

Rizla,

this is not a marketing survey, it is being used to produce an original piece of academic research.

https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=9805

Originally Posted by uctq085

Rizla,

this is not a marketing survey, it is being used to produce an original piece of academic research.

https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=9805

Okay I believe you. And I did do the survey.

Can I ask why you didn't include Médecins Sans Frontières?

Originally Posted by Rizla

Okay I believe you. And I did do the survey.

Can I ask why you didn't include Médecins Sans Frontières?

A perfectly fair question!

Originally Posted by CAGAN

With what has happened in Haiti, it's got me thinking. I am very much against any foreign aid regardless of the disaster. I believe the individual should be given the option to donate to a foreign charity and the government should not be allowed to give OUR money away. We are already in horrible debt and to give away even more money away is just very bad housekeeping. I feel bitterly sorry for the people of Haiti, however, surely the choice to donate should be made by the individual !!

Definitely 100% agree. My only concern would be if really needed is
foreign aid for those who far more in needd as Germany did at the end
of World War ll. It should be up to the individual to whether he or she
wants to lend their money to aid in 'foreign aid.' Such as our ability to
help subjugated nations who wish not to be subjugated.

Originally Posted by soloman

A perfectly fair question!

I thought so, I did feel there was a rather large sampling of organization which a heavy Christian philosophy.

I used to know somebody who was approached by Tear Fund to take advantage of his specialist skills, he ended up offering to work for them in Africa... all well and good until they found out he was an atheist.

Ever since, I heavily discriminate when deciding which NGOs to support, favoring those that are completely secular and with high levels of professional expertise, of which Doctors Without Borders is a fine example.

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, and I don't feel the survey reflected this position very well.

I don't think you can put a price on human life and suffering. That being said i don't think aid should be government or religiously handed out as there is always some agenda to that giving that uses such situations to make gains in political alliances and religious footholds that wouldn't of taken place if such need wasn't there. When i give i give to organizations that have no such affiliations because i don't want my money tainted by exploitation or religious indoctrination. That doesn't mean that our government should not give aid though and we can measure the moral and ethical health of a nation by their willingness to help those in need of help. The problem with giving aid is the cost of getting that aid to the people who need it the most. It is not as simple as a money transfer and everyone seems to want to profit from the giving of aid, very sad in my opinion.

here is always some agenda to that giving that uses such situations to make gains in political alliances

Yep. That doesn't have to be a bad thing.

This week, Cameron said that we can't afford to abandon Afghanistan again. It's a reasonable example.

Happy, healthy people generally don't follow dictators or turn to religious extremism. A stable economy helps prevent war and insurgency, things which in turn lead to more ruin and poverty.

...this is exactly why aid it best given with a strategic overview. That and the fact that when distributed by nations or through the UN, it can be applied with a strategic overview, as part of a larger plan of development, so the money can be used more efficiently and effectively, rather than wasting money to have missionaries go in an dig wells willy-nilly all over Africa. Much of the Government aid is spent on infrastructure and education.

Looking at the sums involved a few £M here and there to disarster areas are realy quite insignificant. What we should be asking is why do we give £Billions in aid every year to fast growing economies like China and India ?

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Looking at the sums involved a few £M here and there to disarster areas are realy quite insignificant. What we should be asking is why do we give £Billions in aid every year to fast growing economies like China and India ?

I suspect the answer is we are 'buying' influence and trade. Possibly also the aid is given in a form we can influence - perhaps making university places to the very able who may then stay on and work or research here? I really am clutching at straws!

Originally Posted by soloman

I suspect the answer is we are 'buying' influence and trade. Possibly also the aid is given in a form we can influence - perhaps making university places to the very able who may then stay on and work or research here? I really am clutching at straws!

I think there's a great deal of truth in that, and many aid agreements do have clauses that specify that British contractors must be used as part of any deals where say large scale infrastructure projects are being undertaken.

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Looking at the sums involved a few £M here and there to disarster areas are realy quite insignificant. What we should be asking is why do we give £Billions in aid every year to fast growing economies like China and India ?

I agree with you in the main, but I always subscribe to the view that if you look after the pennies, the pounds will after themselves. Right now, millions of people in the UK are going through economic hardship thanks to Blair/Brown. They could lose their homes, jobs and self-respect, as well as their dignity. This will cause every social problem you can imagine from divorce to suicide. A reported £9 billion a year for what? I think in the case of some of this money going to economies even greater than ours - there should be an inquiry like the Iraq inquiry. With UK citizens dying in our hospitals for want of machinery and drugs - WHAT WERE THEY THINKING OFF? As I understand it, this has been stopped for these charity cases. No wonder China is set to be a superpower bigger than the US in 50 years time - with mugs like us picking up their bills. Another step in the right direction for the coalition.

And with the genuine poor people of the world - in some cases putting together football teams to compete in the World Cup. How much of our money was used for that, I wonder? Ghana almost made it to the semi-finals! It"s no surprise to me they went further than England did! This just one small example of British stupidity.

£9 billion, or 90p - sorry, too much at present, leave the big contrbutions to Bill Gates, and others - at wealth of £32 billion plus, they can afford it, we can"t! Oxfam, Save the children and such like - they do a good job, but let them do it with voluntry contrbutions from the public - not the Inland Revenue - WE PAY THEM ENOUGH!

Whilst I'd approve of the use our defence force personel and equipment to provide aid relief after a natural disaster, ethically I'm opposed to our govenrment having the authority to spend money raised by taxation on foreign aid.

Originally Posted by R Burgess

Whilst I'd approve of the use our defence force personel and equipment to provide aid relief after a natural disaster, ethically I'm opposed to our govenrment having the authority to spend money raised by taxation on foreign aid.

On the whole I'd agree with that but, I'd qualify the latter part with the statement "unless there was at least an equal or greater benefit back to British business", in which case the overseas aid is little different than the government putting taxpayer's money into infrastructure or regional assistance projects in the UK, other than it can often have beneficial long term effects on overseas trade.