Just to put an alternative spin on things - isn't properly spent aid sometimes useful for our own benefit?

One example I'm thinking of, is an area in Morocco (I think outside Casablanca) where various governments have put money into developing education in the area - i.e. IT courses, etc.

It was an area where some individuals from were recruited by Islamic extremists to act as suicide bombers. I think the reasoning was that the area was so poor, people were more attracted to the idea of 12 virgins etc, than living the rest of their live in a makeshift city made from cardboard. So various governments decided to try and develop the area in some ways, to prevent it from becoming essentially a suicide bomber factor on the doorstep of the EU.

Although I agree with the others here who hate the idea of giving money to certain corrupts nations.

Blogg...... I have now come to the conclusion that I will vote for ANY political party that stops this IMO criminal use of taxpayer's money.

Originally Posted by amazing__lobster

Just to put an alternative spin on things - isn't properly spent aid sometimes useful for our own benefit?

One example I'm thinking of, is an area in Morocco (I think outside Casablanca) where various governments have put money into developing education in the area - i.e. IT courses, etc.

It was an area where some individuals from were recruited by Islamic extremists to act as suicide bombers. I think the reasoning was that the area was so poor, people were more attracted to the idea of 12 virgins etc, than living the rest of their live in a makeshift city made from cardboard. So various governments decided to try and develop the area in some ways, to prevent it from becoming essentially a suicide bomber factor on the doorstep of the EU.

Although I agree with the others here who hate the idea of giving money to certain corrupts nations.

I think that's the point. So-called 'aid' is fine, as long as there's a demonstratable benefit to to the UK.

I don't pay taxes to help poor foreigners. If I wanted to (and could afford to) do that, I'd give to charity.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by ub2008

Good. The aid budget needs to be reduced. Would the countries we give aid to give aid to us if they were in the same situation? I think not.

How do you know that?

You have neither the brain of a Rocket scientist or Brain surgeon. I claim my £5.

Aid: Taking money from poor people in the West to give it to rich people in Africa,

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

Aid: Taking money from poor people in the West to give it to rich people in Africa,

Very true, even some "charities" wont give aid to many African governments if they can avoid it as they know most of it goes straight into the Swiss bank a/c's of the corrupt leaders and their minions. You only have to look at Zimbabwe, a country that had no shortages under white rule, beggared in 20 odd years of corruption & misrule under mugabe! S. Africa one of the 10 wealthiest countries in the world 10 years ago now in debt to the world bank due to corruption & mismanagement!!

How is this force going to deliver stabilisation programming around the world? UK forces would have no freedom of movement to operate in many of the countries where the majority of global development programming takes place.

Somalia, Sudan, Yemen would not allow an armed UK force to set up shop and deliver bullshitty CIMIC programs. The cost of training and deploying the military would be astronomical compared to the cost of DFID using civilian implementing partners to do the work.

Trying to deploy small military teams with sufficient force protection, G4, med and casevac assets would be hugely costly - and I can hardly see UK soldiers walking the streets of Somalia.

The duty of care considerations and associated cost make this a non-starter. I think the tories are having their ears bent by senior officers desperate to ring fence their empires prior to the impending cuts. DFID staff operate under FCO duty of care which is necessarily quite restrictive. Civilian implementing partners don't - they employ local and expat security providers and live amongst the communities relatively unmolested in every country in the world. DFID need to make much more use of these organisations in the same way that USAID do.

For the annual cost of this bizarre concept you could concurrently run 3 year long, country wide development programs in Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Chad and the DRC.

I know cuts are on the way and people are desperate to keep their respective corps up to strength, but soldiers with guns are not the right people economically or politically to deliver development/stabilisation programming in countries where we have no clear mandate to be. Let the expert civilian organisations take the risk of having people coming home in body bags.

'If' this proposal from the Tories actually goes ahead then I take my hat off to CMD for taking a stance & putting the United Kingdom first!

The UK is still sending overseas aid & 'our' resources are suffering, agree'd charity begins at home, getting the MP's to get a grip and action these proposals welcomed words.