Cameron needs to get his priorities sorted.

[finknottle]

Cameron stated yesterday at PMQ's that Britain should hold its head up high as no cuts will be made to the international aid budget indeed the government are planning to increase the already 9 billion year expenditure. This comes at a time when the all-party Commons Defence Committee issued a report warning that expected cuts of up to 20% to the defence budget could undermine the Armed Forces’ ability to defend this country.

This may make him look noble to the recipients of the too often-misused aid but to me it makes me wonder if he is the full shilling. At this moment in time we cannot afford it, we must come first. When and it’s a big when things return to normal we can restart the aid programme but until that day comes every penny should go towards maintaining a strong military and getting the country back on a financial even keel.

 

[2_deck_dash]

International Aid = taking money from poor people in rich Countries and giving it to rich people in poor Countries.

 

[alacrity174]

International Aid = taking money from poor people in rich Countries and giving it to rich people in poor Countries.

DITTO

 

[SONAR-BENDER]

Doesn't charity begin at home?


Maybe that's not politically correct these days.

 

[Seaweed]

Fancy, when he country is broke, BORROWING NINE BILLION POUNDS just to give it away so that it can be squandered or stolen.

Buy shares in Mercedes.

 

[finknottle]

Odd really as when the previous incumbents were at the helm I used to read regularly here on RR how they did not give a shite about defence, it's seems like this cabal don't either as they are prepared to splash out billions of our taxes on Johnny Foreigner instead of using it to keep us safe in this dangerous world.

 

[angrydoc]

I agree with Fink (that's a first!) but I don't think Cameron is bring any different to Labour in this matter. That doesn't defend it - I think we should cut back on charity as we obviously can't afford it at present. It is wrong that we are economising on our own people yet still throwing out lifelines.

 

[Passed-over_Loggie]

Isn't the argument something along the lines of; if you give financial help to foreign types, they are more likely to be our friends and allies so likely to defuse any nastiness from they and those they are ranged against?

There is also another argument that bribery is rarely lasting.

I believe that £9,000 M is somewhat more than 25% of the Defence Budget.

 

[flymo]

We have a similar issue down here with granting foreign aid. Jersey is in a bit of a financial pickle - too much money spent by the States (local government) compared to what tax revenue has been and is due to be collected over the next couple of years. I'm not going to go into the reasons as to why e.g. politicians covertly own the land and businesses used by the States .. oops .....

Jersey gives a lot of money in aid (approx £24m) and the politicians say it's well worth it as we get more money back through business. Hmm, does that mean a large percentage of that money returning is the same money that went out? And where did the other money come from? Money that just maybe should have been spent on the locals in bongo bongo land instead?

We have a crisis here with the States looking at making cut backs with a possibilty of 15% of the civil service losing their jobs. That will be 600 people looking for jobs along with the other 1200 already looking. With a population of 94,000 it isn't going to be easy. And there isn't any dole money either but the average household still contributes £4K a year in social payments...

 

[TaylorMono]

[align=justify]I don't agree.

SONAR-BENDER is right to point out that charity begins at home, and there are plenty of UK charities which need funding. I can't object to the taxpayer's money going to humanitarian causes; but I would prefer those humanitarian causes to be UK-based.

Macmillian, Age Concern, and the RNLI are all registered charities that do something for British people. However, I think that to be defined as a registered charity, the organisation cannot receive Government funding (might be wrong about that?).

Personally I feel that these organisations should be eligible for Government aid.[/align]

 

[finknottle]

[align=justify]I don't agree.

SONAR-BENDER is right to point out that charity begins at home, and there are plenty of UK charities which need funding. I can't object to the taxpayer's money going to humanitarian causes; but I would prefer those humanitarian causes to be UK-based.

Macmillian, Age Concern, and the RNLI are all registered charities that do something for British people. However, I think that to be defined as a registered charity, the organisation cannot receive Government funding (might be wrong about that?).

Personally I feel that these organisations should be eligible for Government aid.[/align]

I think you will find that we are talking here about international aid, we cannot affort to be the ATM for foreign countries in order to make Cameron look good.

 

[mophead]

For once,I agree with Fink....the Overseas Aid we give is a total waste of money.

 

[2badge_mango]

I have to admit it! I agree with Finkie too. Must be something in the water. :lol:

(I'll put more rum in the next one!)

2BM

 

[johne]

Totally agree. What are they thinking about giving 9 billion away when they say c.ut backs of 20%.
Giving aid to China still. That's a joke.

 

[bikerman]

Makes me spit that Fink is right for once. That's a first.

 

[Joint_Force_Harrier]

The week Brown gave £800 Million to India I was in Lockheed Martin C130 factory in Atlanta, there was an Indian delagation buying 11 C130J's at $80 million dollars each.

Thats where our money goes.

 

[Seadog]

As much as dishing out money we can't afford to those who don't deserve it annoys, as POL alludes to the logic is simple. Buying influence and access and improving the lot of those who may otherwise cause us a (bigger) headache in the future has been one strand of Foreign Policy since year zero. The cost / benefit analysis should be interesting. Of course we could let China do (more of) it..............er, hang on.

We spend £170 billion on 'social protection'. How many billions of that is going to the lifestyle unemployed / baby factories; money we can't afford to those who don't deserve it?

 

[finknottle]

As much as dishing out money we can't afford to those who don't deserve it annoys, as POL alludes to the logic is simple. Buying influence and access and improving the lot of those who may otherwise cause us a (bigger) headache in the future has been one strand of Foreign Policy since year zero. The cost / benefit analysis should be interesting. Of course we could let China do (more of) it..............er, hang on.

We spend £170 billion on 'social protection'. How many billions of that is going to the lifestyle unemployed / baby factories; money we can't afford to those who don't deserve it?

Aye those on the 'benefits pyramid churn out another sprog scheme as well'. :twisted:

 

[slim]

I think that for the life of this government ALL overseas aid should be stopped. It can be continues again after the country is back in the Black

 

[finknottle]

Right on slim, that way maybe the English could get free hospital car parking just like they have in Scotland and Wales and to save anyone else dragging this one up here we go, the West Lothian question. The coalition need to sort it out and that's simple enough even for them. Only English MPs to vote on matters which affect England only.