Foreign Aid

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • Good new thread.

    Calls for a multibillion-pound cut in the UK’s overseas aid budget and closure of the Department for International Development (DfID) as a separate Whitehall entity are set out in a new vision for a post-Brexit “global Britain” backed by the former foreign secretary Boris Johnson.

    Current definitions of aid spending would be broadened to include peacekeeping, and the BBC’s World Service would be expanded, as part of an effort to restore Britain’s ability to project soft and hard power.

    The paper argues the UK should be freed to define its aid spending unconstrained by criteria set by external organisations, and its purpose expanded from poverty reduction to include “the nation’s overall strategic goals”. UK aid spending, set by law at 0.7% of gross national income, was £13.4bn in 2016.

    I've taken this from a deliberately "lefty" publication that also backs a revision to the foreign aid budget.

  • Just to make it clear to those unaware, this is the story, not about a lunar probe:

    The UK is to hand over £98m to India despite the country - which has spent almost the same on a lunar probe - now giving out more foreign aid than it receives.

    As part of the UK's aid budget, the Department for International Development (DfID) will give £52m this year and a further £46m in 2019/20.

    It comes despite India spending £95.4m on the lunar probe, Chandrayaan-2, which is set to launch in January.

    Are we mad?

    There are hundreds of millions of Indians without barely anything to eat, let alone clean water, but we have people in our country who need stuff too.

    How India chooses to spend its money, is its business, but yes in answer to your question, we are mad for giving India, Pakistan and China tons of money in foreign aid when they have things like space programmes and nuclear weapons.

    It should be our people first, always.

  • I don't think we should give aid to any other country until we have sorted out our own first. I seem to recall one of the arguments over RNLI donations was that some of the money went to India. The UK public are taken for mugs left right and centre. The thing is the foreign office are not going to give money away for nothing so what are they after in return. We pay tax so expect to see some results that benefit us directly and not have it given to other countries. That's what charity is for and it's our choice whether we want to donate or not.

  • If we had a leader like Trump the foreign aid would be immediately re-directed to Australia to help with the fight against the destruction caused by fires. That is leadership.

  • If we had a leader like Trump the foreign aid would be immediately re-directed to Australia to help with the fight against the destruction caused by fires. That is leadership.

    Did Australia divert funds to the UK following any disaster here, the Yorkshire floods for instance?

    No

  • Its good to see you are just as contrary as I am. Do you have a LINK?? Oh... You dont have to provide links... Only me.

    If you know differently please feel free to tell us

  • The CO of RNLI is paid £190, 000 per year. I crossed RNLI off my donation list. They clearly do have enough money. Just a personal thing... I am not seeking approval. I have absolutely no problem with the concept of people giving their own money away. But Foreign Aid is our money NOT the governments.

  • The RNLI has been pretty much all my life the only charity I give any money too, tell a lie, I do give to the British Legion once a year but I have always made a point of always putting something in the RNLI high st collection box's even it's simply all the loose change in my pocket at that time. I think it goes back to when I was a kid and would ask my parents if I could put some money in the boat. I've never been a big fan of charities and very picky as I see many of them more as a tax free business rather than a charity. They waste loads on advertising, champagne dinners and stuff, and when you see how much many charity workers earn it's way above average wage. Hospital trust charities are a classic. I have seen part time jobs advertised where one can earn £20,000 - £30,000 per year WTF for sitting behind a book stall or organising a jumble sale and working in a hospital charity shop a few days or hours a week. That's more than bar staff and waitress / waiter jobs and the majority of the hospitality industry in full time employment unless your in management.

    Charity volunteers is a bit different but they are like slave labour. People are taken advantage of by making them feel guilty or take pity on whatever the charity is. Mostly either the elderly or vulnerable people with illness or unemployed looking to fill in some time and keep active. How can it be justified that a director gets £190, 000 per year. I must admit this has been a kick in teeth for me and I now see the RNLI just like any other charity. I've lost my trust and would rather give direct to the cause like for example a homeless person on the street or something. Many ex forces with PTSD living on the streets. This country has all it's priorities wrong and I would rather do it that way than give the money to say, Shelter. The gov are trying to put a stop to giving direct to homeless too. I don't care if they spend it on alcohol or drugs if that's what they need to get a good nights sleep on the streets and give them some comfort.

    Maybe this is why the foreign office are giving money away, to make up the shortfall for the lack of funds actually going to help people instead of feeding the management and directors. People in high places, directors and MPs are on the same level and part of the same exclusive club. I'll scratch your back you scratch mine kind of thing. Remember the Africa feed the world campaign and look where most of that money ended up we found out years later. Charities have to be one of the biggest cons in this country and they have everyone running around after them putting money in the pot like some kind of cult.

    Sorry if that turned into a bit of a rant.

  • I never compromise, when I see a charity within itself, taking chunks of the money, people give in expectation the coal front purpose gets it yet others feed from it, I stop giving. Oxfam is corrupt. Cancer research rakes in billions yet you never see an end to its advertising for more.

    I give to local needs: for example, if a person has a child which I know is in need for a treatment in another country and I know that person, from close proximity, I will give money.

    I never give to the "big guys". There always seems to be some sort of corporate image about them, giving off a stink.

  • Regarding the RNLI I have never understood why there is a need for a charity, If I drive on the roads I need to have tax and insurance but if I take a boat out I rely on a charity if I need assistance. Why is it not compulsory for boat owners and users to have the same

  • Thatcher was accused of saying: "The way the get the rich to work is to give them a pay rise - the way to get the ordinary worker to work is to give them a pay cut"??

    If politicians can sell their second home - WE PAY FOR - and keep the profit..... I will never respect the concept of people working for nothing, as worthy of back slapping, while others in the same organisation rake in big dollars. I see the RIGHT to volunteer but dont ask me to respect it.

    RNLI front line boat crew should be given a few thousand payment every xmas eve. I dont think we will ever see the day when the CO of RNLI drowns in his office.

  • Thatcher was accused of saying: "The way the get the rich to work is to give them a pay rise - the way to get the ordinary worker to work is to give them a pay cut"??

    Apart from not making any sense who accused her and when of saying this?

  • Dont know. I think it was news spin... You know, similar to.. Trump hates women???

    Or his classic "fake news"

    The only comment I recall attributed to her was that benefit claimants were "not one of us"

  • Why is it not compulsory for boat owners and users to have the same

    Maritime law is bit different from land and there is insurance. Lloyds shipping is the biggest in the world. Besides even if you have insurance and you end up in the drink you will still require rescuing. Insurance is not going to pay for that, in the same way vehicle insurance does not pay for the fire brigade if your car goes up in flames or other emergency services are required. It's due to cut backs in things like RNAS Culdrose going out to do rescues that the RNLI are required more. There's kind of an unwritten rule that all sailors help those in need and the same may be returned to oneself one day when in need. There's generally more human kindness, generosity and compassion with everyone looking out for one another at Sea. Also what happens when one gets into international waters.

    Shall we say to every swimmer before they enter the Sea at the seaside that they have to have insurance first. insurance companies are one of the biggest scammers out there, especially on the roads where they have us by the short and curlies because it's compulsory. We even end up paying not only for the non insured but for crazy accidents in places like Russia because insurance companies are international. Everything does not need to be commercialised in this world. That's the yankee doodle way of doing things where profit rules over humanity.

  • Besides even if you have insurance and you end up in the drink you will still require rescuing. Insurance

    Bit if you break down an insurance would cover the cost of towing you in, and if your boat sinks it would cover the cost of rescuing you in the same way that car insurance does

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!