There’s a big argument taking place over whether in these straitened times we should be continuing to fund foreign aid programmes. It’s quite right that we have this debate – taxpayers’ money should be spent only if this is achieving good results. My view is clear: aid works.
Whether it works or not is not the question. What matters is that it is no place of the government to steal other people’s money and give it to third parties – irrespective of need. Charity is and should be a personal matter. If people want their money to go to third world countries, then it is up to them to give accordingly and those of us who – along with many of the people of those countries themselves – believe that aid merely creates dependency (as well as funding some kleptocratic dictator’s latest Merc) and trade without barriers is a better, more equitable solution – will prefer to withhold such payments. Thing is; we, those of us whose money it is; should be making the decision, not the government, for the government has no money of its own.
You can read Cameron’s wibble if you feel so inclined. It’s the usual cockwaffle attempting to justify theft on a grand scale along with climate change and immigration thrown in for good measure. In other words a complete inability to consider any solution that might be remotely radical or outside conventional (non) thinking. He prefers not to address the key question, preferring instead to address how the stolen funds should be spent, not that they are stolen in the first instance – he takes that as being all okay. It is not.
“Take one statistic. Between 2011 and 2015, Britain helped vaccinate 67 million children, saving at least 1.2 million lives from diseases such as pneumonia and diarrhoea.
Here’s another statistic. In 1950 the population of the Middle East and Africa was equivalent to half of the population of Europe. By the end of this century, it will be eight times the size of Europe’s.”
Statistic 1 and 2 aren’t related are they? Will the aid budget have to increase 16 fold every 150 years to keep up?
“By the end of this century, it will be eight times the size of Europe’s.”
Is that why we are importing them, so that Europe gets to keep its places at the ‘top tables’? A bit like the way some years ago a House of Lords committee thought Heathrow should be the world’s busiest airport – some of us would prefer it wasn’t or that we should be allowed to fly from somewhere local rather than be Heathrow numbers fodder.
No debate for me. Answer is no.
The girlies like to watch an American show called “Say Yes to the Dress”; it’s about buying a wedding dress. A recent show featured the daughter of an Angolan politician – foreign minister? -she was spending $15000 dollars each on TEN dresses. I wonder if the British taxpayer funded a proportion of that . . . .
Absolutely spot on with that post, Longrider, !
@LR
+1
I have debated this Gov’t extorted compulsory charity “donation” on Bishophill.
Alan Kendal claims it is good and British people should be proud UK Gov’t extorts money from taxpayers and gives it to other countries without their permission.
Recent BBC QT Audience view
Answer to Which: No and abolish DfID and the 0.7% law.
Well, I’m British and I’m not proud, I’m livid.
Oh no LR, our aid spending has very definite and visible results. The warm glow I feel when I think of the Ugandan President’s executive jet will last until my dying day. And the fact that India has a bigger deep-water navy than ours, and a space programme fills me with hope for the future. And climate change, and that…
Cameron’s article is worse than cockwaffle, it’s about giving him a segway into that part of political life where ex-ministers get highly remunerated jobs consulting and spending the money, a-la Clinton, Blair and Miliband to name but a few.