Foreign aid.

[Chippy_Tea]

This is being discussed on the radio, how can we send places like India aid when they say they don't need it and the South Asian countries who received £186m (in 2015)
despite being on track to overtake the UK to become the fifth largest economy, we have people dying because the NHS cannot afford drugs, school kids stealing food to take home and families relying on food banks to make ends meet, i know some countries desperately need aid but not all of them do and my view is we should stop sending these countries aid and spend the money here instead.

How much does the UK pay in overseas aid?

Under legislation approved in 2015, the UK government is legally required to spend 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) on overseas development assistance (ODA), popularly known as foreign aid.

In 2015, that translated to a total spend of £12.1bn, according to the Department for International Development. The provisional figure for 2016 is £13.3bn.

International summits since the 1970s have been urging wealthy countries to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid. The target was also seen as an important way to help meet the UN's Millennium Development Goals. The UK first met the target on a voluntary basis in 2013, before it was made a legal requirement.

Where does UK foreign aid go?

According to data released by the Department for International Development, 19.5 percent of the UK foreign aid budget was given to ten countries in 2016.

Pakistan received the most official development assistance, with costs totalling £463m. Syria was second with costs of £352m as a result of the ISIS conflict.

Ethiopia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Tanzania, Jordan, South Sudan, Sierra Leone and Somalia make up the top ten.

India fell out of the top 20. The South Asian country received £186m in 2015, despite being on track to overtake the UK to become the fifth largest economy this year. This suggest that thought does go in to how foreign aid is spent

 

[Bigcol49]

Hi!
It does seem out of kilter, but, of course, there's plenty of money available in the economy to fulfill both goals - the problem is that political (not economic) decisions are driving our economy and the money that could be spent on NHS, education, child poverty, homelessness etc. is being diverted to achieve political goals.

 

[Ken L]

Ah foreign aid...
Money taken from the poor people in rich countries and given to rich people in poor countries....

It needs to stop. All of it - with the exception of a disaster relief fund such as the one that didn't exist for the British protected citizens of the Caribbean when 2017's hurricanes came calling.

Foreign aid doesn't help, it just breeds war, dependency, overpopulation, corruption, mass extinction and the current migration crisis.

 

[BeerCat]

They gave 5 million to a Nigerian girl band yet we have homeless on the streets in every city etc etc.

 

[LarryF]

Ah foreign aid...
Money taken from the poor people in rich countries and given to rich people in poor countries....

Brilliant.

 

[Thumper]

I agree with foreign aid in principle. But to use a tired analogy, if it's the start of the month and I'm flush, I'll happily give a quid to a homeless bloke. At the end of the month, I don't. I would say the same principle ought to apply.

That said, I'd agree with @Bigcol49. It is nonsense to say we don't have enough money to fund basic public swrvices. Austerity is ideologically driven and not backed up by academic evidence (the paper it's based on has since been discredited), and it's continued existence is due purely to one of two things: either it's an excuse for the Tories to do what the Tories would have done anyway, or the politician's perennial fear of the "U-turn". Possibly both.

 

[Ken L]

It is nonsense to say we don't have enough money to fund basic public swrvices. Austerity is ideologically driven and not backed up by academic evidence (the paper it's based on has since been discredited), and it's continued existence is due purely to one of two things: either it's an excuse for the Tories to do what the Tories would have done anyway, or the politician's perennial fear of the "U-turn". Possibly both.

It's very easy to be profligate with other people's money.

 

[Clint]

Except for the countries getting it,do any better off countries not give ?
It is out of balance though....giving millions to a country that have a space programme AND a F1 team....

 

[Ken L]

Except for the countries getting it,do any better off countries not give ?
It is out of balance though....giving millions to a country that have a space programme AND a F1 team....

There is a rather controversial UN spending target of 0.7 per cent of national income to be spent on foreign aid.
Britain is the only major economy to hit the UN's foreign aid spending target.
None of the other G7 nations met the target.
UK foreign aid spending rose by £555 million to £13.9 billion last year.

We could do a lot with 14 billion quid - unemployment benefits only cost £2 billion a year..

The US remains the world’s largest aid donor in cash terms but its £27.4billion contribution is just 0.18 per cent of its national income.

According to an article in The Guardian:
Out of the DAC countries, those which seemed to give the least in development assistance are the Slovak Republic donating 0.08% of its GNI, the Czech Republic, Greece and Slovenia at 0.11%, Korea at 0.13% and Spain at 0.14%. Including non-DAC countries, Israel and Latvia were the lowest, donating 0.07% and 0.08% respectively.

Iceland technically donated the least out of the DAC countries, at $35m, but that’s 0.21% of its GNI: 0.2% higher than America’s contribution.

Out of the 34 countries listed as donors by the OECD, Latvia donated the least with $25m, which is just 0.08% of its national income. But that was a 3% increase on its donations the previous year, when more than half of the members cut their aid budgets from 2013 to 2014. Japan’s was cut by 15.3% to $9bn, Australia saw cuts of 7.2% to $4.2bn, while Spain cut its funding by 20.3% to $1.8bn.

 

[Saisonator]

I think half of it is providing an industry for kids and families of the ruling class.
Would there be enough lucrative jobs out there for a load of middle class kids with humanities degrees if you took away most of the foreign aid sector?

 

[simon12]

I'm not pretending I know much about this and could be wrong but here goes. I think this aid is often poorly targeted and ends up with the already rich especially in Africa where the aid is needed most but the governments are the most corrupt. I also wonder if it was increased and targeted well if it could save money if it helped people in there own countries and stopped them flooding into Europe to places they don't even speak the language and end up being permanently on benefits and or into crime.

 

[Saisonator]

I'm not pretending I know much about this and could be wrong but here goes. I think this aid is often poorly targeted and ends up with the already rich especially in Africa where the aid is needed most but the governments are the most corrupt. I also wonder if it was increased and targeted well if it could save money if it helped people in there own countries and stopped them flooding into Europe to places they don't even speak the language and end up being permanently on benefits and or into crime.

I would prefer the money used to actually defend Europe's borders, be it with fences, guards, ships, planes.
But that's not the EU's agenda, they are facilitating the invasion to strip away any kind of national identity each country has. Also to destabilise us so they can implement draconian laws to watch and control us, in the guise of keeping us safe.

 

[Pavros]

I believe that if a country can fund a space program and has nuclear weapons capabilities, then that country doesn't really need any aid from others. It should divert money from such programs to help some of it's citizens living in poverty, etc.

 

[Bigcol49]

I believe that if a country can fund a space program and has nuclear weapons capabilities, then that country doesn't really need any aid from others. It should divert money from such programs to help some of it's citizens living in poverty, etc.

Hi!
Perhaps they could send money to help our citizens who live in poverty.

 

[Bigcol49]

I would prefer the money used to actually defend Europe's borders, be it with fences, guards, ships, planes.
But that's not the EU's agenda, they are facilitating the invasion to strip away any kind of national identity each country has. Also to destabilise us so they can implement draconian laws to watch and control us, in the guise of keeping us safe.

Hi!
How about a wall?
Sings: "Paranoia here I come . . ."

 

[Saisonator]

Hi!
How about a wall?
Sings: "Paranoia here I come . . ."

We don't own this country, we are just here for 80 years or so.
I don't believe we have any right to gamble so recklessly with our future generations inheritance. Especially considering the blood that our ancestors spilt to pass it onto us.
We don't have an Israel to go to if it all goes seriously wrong.

 

[Bigcol49]

Especially considering the blood that our ancestors spilt to pass it onto us.

Hi!
Allow me to quote from the great Ed Pickford's song "The Workers' Song"

But when the sky darkens and the prospect is war
Who's given a gun and then pushed to the fore
And expected to die for the land of our birth
When we've never owned one handful of earth?

We're the first ones to starve the first ones to die
The first ones in line for that pie-in-the-sky
And always the last when the cream is shared out
For the worker is working when the fat cat's about

Blood was spilt for the privilege of cowtowing to our masters, who DID own a handful of earth - aye, and lots more!

 

[GerritT]

On the one hand: yeah, too much goes to the people that shouldn't have it, but on the other hand, the people that you WANT to have it would get nothing if you quit giving.
It's a lose-lose situation.

Give'm all access to clean water and toilets, and re-evaluate when that has been done.

 

[Ken L]

Hi!
How about a wall?
Sings: "Paranoia here I come . . ."

A wall is impractical. Super aEgis II is a better option.
And no, I'm not joking. It would save lives - and Europe.

 

[Brianbrewed]

We don't own this country, we are just here for 80 years or so.
I don't believe we have any right to gamble so recklessly with our future generations inheritance. Especially considering the blood that our ancestors spilt to pass it onto us.
We don't have an Israel to go to if it all goes seriously wrong.

Ohh kay
Foreign Aid is normally a state's effort to project 'soft power.'
Every nation does it as part of it's foreign policy package to expand it's sphere of influence.
I imagine the UK funds projects in India in an effort to open up future markets to British goods thus ensuring trade & jobs for British industry.



Anyway I like beer