Should we reduce Foreign Aid?

Started by T00ts, November 25, 2020, 12:55:51 PM

« previous - next »

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

johnofgwent

Quote from: patman post on November 25, 2020, 01:17:43 PM
Keeps "The-charity-begins-at-home" mob happier...


Well it does begin at home.


Foreign Aid historically has been sod all about aid, and more study about bribing a foreign government to spend that money procuring British goods and services
<t>In matters of taxation, Lord Clyde\'s summing up in the 1929 case Inland Revenue v Ayrshire Pullman Services is worth a glance.</t>

Thomas

Cant answer the question in the op , because first we need to know what exactly is "foreign aid" and where exactly does the taxpayers money go and who is it spent on?

Also , the uk government introduced targets five years ago to ensure all departments that use uk taxpayers money on foreign aid introdiced greater transparency into their work , and five years on , 70% of uk government departments spending taxpayers money on "foreign aid" have systematically failed to meet those targets on transparency.

Doesnt this in part lead peoples suspicion that foreign aid rarely meets the needs of those whom it was originally intended for and is merely used in grubby brown envelopes to grease the wheels of dirty deals among the worlds corrupt elite?
Quote
Disappointingly, the 2020 ATI has found that five years after the aid strategy which committed departments to take transparency seriously, only three out of 10 spending departments have met the target.

More alarming still, the evidence shows that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the second largest spender of UK aid money, only recently got a rating of "fair". While this represents an improvement on previous years' grading, it falls well short of the UK government's own commitment to having all departments rated as "Good" by 2020.

https://www.bond.org.uk/news/2020/01/why-we-need-more-transparency-in-aid-spending

Perhaps thats why most folk think foreign aid should be cut or scrapped altogether , and what fuels the old adage of charity begins at home time and again?
An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t-Saoghail!

Nick

Quote from: patman post on November 25, 2020, 01:17:43 PM
Keeps "The-charity-begins-at-home" mob happier...

Charity does begin at home when you're sending money to countries like India which have a space program.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

patman post

Keeps "The-charity-begins-at-home" mob happier...
On climate change — we're talking, we're beginning to act, but we're still not doing enough...

Sheepy

Crazy world isn't it; we have the very same reporters reporting the worst slump in 300 years which we said they would end up doing if they over reacted to the Chinese flu, while we have has been politicians considering their own positions on the world stage and feck everyone else, while it is somehow contentious that we don't give away more of something we didn't have and were only borrowing with interest to keep up with the joneses. 
Just because I don't say anything, it doesn't mean I haven't noticed!

Barry

As we have a negative balance of payments, and our borrowing is increasing, the foreign aid comes from us borrowing money to give away. It doesn't make sense at all.
It should be reduced completely, to zero.
Charities can send donations and aid to the needy.
† The end is nigh †

T00ts

Dishy Rishi has announced that he is reducing Foreign Aid in order to help our economy. I think it's inevitable given the current situation - but is he right?