Options
Why can't we cut Foreign Aid?
TrustFundBaby
Posts: 593 Forum Member
✭✭
Why do we still give £12bn a year in foreign aid. I wouldn't go ukip extreme and say get rid of it completely but why can't we halve if or cut it by a few billion just until we get the deficit down and then increase it again.
Times of austerity. People using food banks. Cuts to almost all government departments. Yet overseas aid is untouchable. Why?
Times of austerity. People using food banks. Cuts to almost all government departments. Yet overseas aid is untouchable. Why?
0
Comments
Seems mad to me when £12 Billion is getting slashed from welfare for our own citizens.
Yeah that would be such a nice thing to do wouldn't it? Cutting off aid to the poorest people in the world who die because of a lack of clean water, starvation and no access to medication that we can buy over the counter here very cheaply?
Do you know that the Government spent well over 700 BILLION for the last few years and you want to cut the smallest budget completely? Well I say NO and will keep on saying No on this too!
You'd close borders to Asylum seekers.
Any idea as to how asylum works?
https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/overview
You must apply for asylum if you want to stay in the UK as a refugee.
To be eligible you must have left your country and be unable to go back because you fear persecution.
Not a high threshold.
The truth is we don't know when half of it is spent, and if it is doing all these great things then why aren't we giving 20bn or 30bn.
Our government debt is 1.5 trillion. We are having to make cuts everywhere. I'm not saying cut completely but whats wrong with knocking 2bn of foreign aid? We already give way more than most countries.
Agree 100%
It is one of the things that the UK government does that I am truly proud of. There are areas where the aid could be better targeted but it is essential that as one of the richest countries we help some of the poorest.
This is the correct answer.
Of course we must give FA to the poorest, but we must stop giving it to countries which pays for the President's private plane or to countries who have their own space programmes. That is madness.
However, most people don't want to cut it, and that's why we'll still continue paying it.
One day decades into the future when it's our country that is struggling I'm sure the richer countries will help us out.
That is why I said it needs to be better targeted but to cut aid would be the act of a country who has decided to withdraw from the human race where helping the poorest of all has somehow become an issue that is of little importance.
Whatever problems there are in spending the money and making sure it is spent well is not a reason to get rid of it. One obvious problem is that the budget is set on 0.7 of GDP and the GDP figures change all the time hence why they end up making what seems to be rash decisions.
What would be better is if they agreed a fixed sum of money to be spent via the 3 year Comprehensive Spending review and that way they can plan how to spend the money much better. I personally would like to see more work being done with charities and I think they do already but make no mistake, in a lot of the coutries they are helping in, they will have to pay bribes to corrupt officials to get the aid to the people in need and that won't change until and if these poor countries get fully developed in every way. Again that is no reason to not give aid and the amount paid in bribes is often very small.
There are plenty of comments about where does the money go? Is it to the people or is it spent on luxuries for the rich?
Is there any evidence that it's used to pay for riches for the rich? I mean evidence, not anecdotes.
The link I posted indicates that UK businesses benefit indirectly from aid given to producers of goods. Depends on perspective as to whether that is a problem I guess.
But yeah, prinicple is good. Bring people up to our economic level so that they can buy our high value goods and services in the future.
All that Foreign aid requires bods on the ground developing working relationships with the movers and shakers in that territory.
As they say in business, its not what you know but who you know.
Indeed. I'm not someone who thinks we should be dishing out our scarce resources because it is a good thing to do per se. There should always be a rationale behind why it is best for UK. In this instance it is a no brainer. Help the refugees to stay where they are. All this talk of borders is all well and good but you know that so many will attempt to claim asylum. They may not all succeed eventually but it will have cost us a small fortune (more than overseas aid) in the interim.
No connection between aid and trade. a third of the aid budget goes to UN and EU organisations - it comes with no UK sign of origin. Much of the rest goes on things like aids prevention, climate change work, crisis relief and via charities . We spend a lot on training foreign civil servants - but that doesn't mean they like us. Much goes to people who buy elsewhere . We provide India with money - and it buys French fighters and US martiime patrol aircraft we can't afford for the RAF. We provide Pakistan with money and it buys its own nuclear weapons and Chinese arms.
An interesting article, WB. Yes, the system is not perfect, but it looks like a work in progress with lessons being learned.
Suppose we could let the Chinese ingratiate themselves with india and Pakistan and lose influence in the area.
It's not like China has been spending billions all over Africa and Asia securing resources for the future.
I don't think any aid money is given directly to Governments at all. If Governments of poor countries can't or won't help all their poor people properly doesn't mean that the rest of us should do the same. If we were to refuse to help people because their own Governments refuse to help or can't help fully that would be like saying lets have no care homes for abused children here or refuge centres for battered partners etc etc.
We could still give help to the poorest in the world, but stop giving aid to countries that don't need it and stop using aid money to bribe foreign governments - let the companies benefiting from the contracts pay the bribes from their own profits. Give the aid and help in produce manufactured here rather than cash as it'll help the poor abroad and the people at home at the same time.
Countries like India, while its getting richer does not have enough money to look after all of its poor people. Its classic some have some don't. Over 700 Million people in India live in dire poverty and even in India gave up all of its nukes and space programmes that is designed to help them develop if you look into it, they still wouldn't be able to help all their poor. Though I think they've passed some welfare benefits recently.
As for Pakistan, I think their position is that without nukes, there won't be a Pakistan as India would or could invade and they probably think defence of the nation comes before anything. The establishment in the UK tends to think like that too as do people high up in other major countries like in the US.