FOREIGN AID - DO WE NOT NEED THE GELT HERE?

#1
Sorry, don't know the accurate statistics on the amount of money which is actually designated for "foreign aid" by this gobment but if it's in the region of £50M, WTF can't it be given to all the good causes in this fine country?

Just watching on the box this morning that the Mountain Rescue service is supported entirely by voluntary contributions as is the RNLI. Why do we therefore give a shed-load of cash to the likes of India?

I'm quite sure readers will come back at this with either total contempt or more accurate stats than I can provide.

Just makes my O Pos boil when you and me have to dig deep for some services which with a bit of common could be sorted by being a bit more insular.

Don't get me started on these b(w)ankers bonuses!!! Just don't, yet!
 
#3
what is especially irritating is that india, despite having enough of its own money to run its own nuclear arms programme, still gets a sub from me....
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#4
When can we apply for Foreign Aid from other nations? We're almost a 3rd world country now.
 
#5
Norfolknchance said:
WTF can't it be given to all the good causes in this fine country?
Don't be silly. If we stopped giving aid, we'd no longer be seen as prosperous and therefore not a country worth coming to.
 
#6
johnboyzzz said:
2008 - 2009 DFID’s final budget (Departmental Expenditure Limit) for 2008-09 was £5.7 billion, increased from £5.3 billion in 2007-08. The budget is planned to increase to £7.8 billion by 2010-11. This is an average annual increase of 11 per cent in real terms over the 2007-08 baseline.


http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/departmental-report/2009/vol2-resource-acc.pdf
That's a relief. That only works out at about £3000 per employed elector.
 
#7
in a bid to send norfolknchance's bp even higher...

Read this and if you know anyone who reads Private Eye, go through the last six or seven issues. It stinks beyond many other headlines that HMG generates.

(granted the link is from 2008, but situation is well detailed, and if anything is worse now then in 2008)

Staggering the monies that are being paid to "directors" of CDC, who are using public money in this way. Have no problem with emergency relief (Haiti is a good example), but many of the developing country projects are little more than UK PLC investing taxpayers money at virtually no benefit to the UK taxpayer, and (if that's sounds a little cynical) many of the projects (see Private Eye) are white elephants to say the least.
 
#9
vvaannmmaann said:
Re the RNLI,
IIRC it was mentioned here a while ago,that they get more money from the public than the Gobment would give them?
And that they don't particularly want to become a publicly-funded organisation due to the red tape, micromanagement and political correctness that comes with it...
 
#10
Thankyou ABrighter2006, just what I need to get through the day (and the rest of this year!) NOT! My initial estimate of £50M was a wee bit wrong then, £7.8 Billion coming up soon - goody.

Fukk me Puttees, the answer has been staring us in the face all along. Since we'd be a country not worth coming to, let's suspend all aid outside our own borders (I'd make an exception for the poor people of Haiti) and see how many want to come to this land of milk and honey.
 
#11
Norfolknchance said:
Sorry, don't know the accurate statistics on the amount of money which is actually designated for "foreign aid" by this gobment but if it's in the region of £50M, WTF can't it be given to all the good causes in this fine country?

Just watching on the box this morning that the Mountain Rescue service is supported entirely by voluntary contributions as is the RNLI. Why do we therefore give a shed-load of cash to the likes of India?

I'm quite sure readers will come back at this with either total contempt or more accurate stats than I can provide.

Just makes my O Pos boil when you and me have to dig deep for some services which with a bit of common could be sorted by being a bit more insular.

Don't get me started on these b(w)ankers bonuses!!! Just don't, yet!

Because international aid secures the safety and security of foreign nations, some of which sit ideally located to access natural resources and ultimately it's cheaper to buy the resources than it is to take them.

Just a thought. I mean, there is the moral side of it as well, but altruism doesn't read so well in the Daily Mail, does it?

Any other cutting edge issues you'd like to bring up? Maybe you could write an expose on Poll tax?
 
#12
muzungu_marlow said:
Because international aid secures the safety and security of foreign nations, some of which sit ideally located to access natural resources and ultimately it's cheaper to buy the resources than it is to take them.
Right. So it's misrepresentation and bribery. That's OK, then.
 
#14
#15
putteesinmyhands said:
muzungu_marlow said:
Because international aid secures the safety and security of foreign nations, some of which sit ideally located to access natural resources and ultimately it's cheaper to buy the resources than it is to take them.
Right. So it's misrepresentation and bribery. That's OK, then.
Well to be honest I'd be happier to know that we're getting something slightly more tangible than a warm fuzzy feeling inside back from all this money being pissed up the wall.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#16
Bravo_Zulu said:
vvaannmmaann said:
Re the RNLI,
IIRC it was mentioned here a while ago,that they get more money from the public than the Gobment would give them?
And that they don't particularly want to become a publicly-funded organisation due to the red tape, micromanagement and political correctness that comes with it...
Can you imagine the Risk Assessments and Health & Safety surveys?? "sorry, but you can't go more than 12 metres from shore, due to cutbacks , here have a rubber ring, we had to sell your boat to pay for another Diversity manager"
 
#17
putteesinmyhands said:
muzungu_marlow said:
Because international aid secures the safety and security of foreign nations, some of which sit ideally located to access natural resources and ultimately it's cheaper to buy the resources than it is to take them.
Right. So it's misrepresentation and bribery. That's OK, then.
Certainly. In fact, as goes government aid, if it wasn't doled out for the benefit of your country, you really would be complaining.
 
#18
Joker62 said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
vvaannmmaann said:
Re the RNLI,
IIRC it was mentioned here a while ago,that they get more money from the public than the Gobment would give them?
And that they don't particularly want to become a publicly-funded organisation due to the red tape, micromanagement and political correctness that comes with it...
Can you imagine the Risk Assessments and Health & Safety surveys?? "sorry, but you can't go more than 12 metres from shore, due to cutbacks , here have a rubber ring, we had to sell your boat to pay for another Diversity manager"
They'd get a rest during Cowes week, though, seeing as drowning ethnic minorities are under-represented.
 
#19
So if we stopped sending aid out for a couple of years (say 5) we would be quids in??? The money could go to places it is needed in this country and it would benefit this country and the people who actually pay that money to support our counrty. Why are the nobheads running this country not seeing things as we the majority do and sort our own lives out and let other countries sort their own out. Why do we give money to countries that have space programs??? WTF are they going to do on the fukcing moon!!!!!! ask for more money to set up a colony????? I give up and cannot get my little head around it all. am going to lie down in a dark room.
 
#20
My Economist Book Of Numbers says that in 2007, the UK donated (bilaterally) $9.4bn, which is 4th in world ranking, That sum equates to 0.36% of GDP which puts us joint 14th. Arguably (albeit two years ago) we weren't doing enough?

What a difference two years makes...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top