ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
to ask if you agree that we "should not be sending aid to bongo bongo land"(218 Posts)
Aside the ridiculous racist overtones of the statement itself....if you can...
The adorable MEP on radio 4 this morning was suggesting that it is inappropriate to be sending aid abroad when we are cutting police, hospitals and the defence back home.
The interviewer pointed out the last aid dispatched was 50 million to help with a polio outbreak in the Sudan area.
The MEP basically said if people want to give to charity they can, the government shouldn't and I think the majority of your listeners agree.
So please answer if you will:
1. Did you hear the interview?
2. Do you agree that we should stop sending foreign aid?
3. Can you believe he said bongo bongo? In 2013???
Are you still counting Icbineg?
2. No - although it would be better to have (Fair) Trade not Aid.
3. No - I was absolutely staggered. What a moron.
Babybythesea I like your style.
I think we should use the aid money that we currently send out to these countries, to pay wages for unemployed people to go out there and train people to teach, doctors, builders etc. Handouts only go so far and what we need to do long term is ensure that these countries are given the chance to stand on their own 2 feet and not be reliant on aid from the West for ever.
Every time UKIP come out with something racist or bigoted the large majority of people who would never vote for them anyway see them as totally discredited, and the sizeable minority of actual racists think 'Great, finally someone prepared to stick it to Bongo Bongo land.'
Isn't what he said basically a direct quote from Alan Clarke's diaries? Making UKIP 70's tory throwbacks in a timewarp. Apt.
2. No, but we need to target aid better, tackle corruption and focus more on trade than on aid - it's always preferable to help people stand on their own two feet.
3. Yes, of course I can believe it. It's UKIP.
baby it was clear to me! interesting again to read your posts!
Gah - I need to proof read properly.
The first sentence was something picked from a pervious poster but just looks random and silly where I put it because it isn't clear that's what I did.
Our own country needs sorting out before we throw millions at other countries. This country cannot solve the problems of the entire world
What do you think of, for example, paying more for bananas because it gives the people who farm them a better existence? So that we would not need to 'throw millions' at them in the same way because they would have a fair shot of working their way out of poverty (both on a personal but also a national level)?
I can't remember which charity it was who highlighted it, but some workers on banana plantations were having their health massively affected because of the spraying. Chemicals which really shouldn't be sprayed on humans were being used to protect the crop from pests, and this was being done using aerial spraying (planes), but in order to ensure they picked an amount of bananas to give them a wage they could live on, the workers were not leaving the plantation or even taking shelter. If they did, their wages reflected it.
This is so we can buy cheap bananas. I can't see how we could not then go on to fund healthcare in these countries - we are a major reason WHY people are in need of that healthcare!
Unless we are really saying "I am poor and deserve cheap food and if providing it for me gives you cancer, then that's your bad luck - I don't have an responsibility to help in your possible recovery".
Thousands of examples like this.
I can't separate this from the aid issues. While we are happily buying cheap stuff at the cost of developing countries, I cannot see how we can then go on to say that there are poverty stricken people here too who need help and we won't give to other countries. If we were prepared to pay fair prices for our goods, then maybe we'd have a point. And if tax avoidance wasn't a problem (see my earlier post - one major mining firm gets 84 per cent of its revenues from Africa, yet has just four of its 81 subsidiaries registered in African countries, and 47 registered in tax havens). We need to get this sorted out, and not carry on living and conducting business in such a way as to keep whole nations in poverty, and then maybe aid wouldn't be an issue at all. While we contribute to the problem though, we cannot then refuse to contribute to the support of those affected. However poor we think we are.
This is a separate issue from then pointing out that the aid needs to be managed in such a way that it is not creamed off by politicians etc. That is, of course, vital. And it also needs to be an ongoing process of assessing where it is needed and how it is delivered. I was half listening to something yesterday (on Radio 4 again!) which talked about how aid to somewhere (Afghanistan?) from the US was in the form of grain but how this year they've had a bumper harvest and the grain will go to waste. Or something along those lines - I was not concentrating properly.
3. Yes, he is a UKIP bigot
3.Yes I can believe it he's an older gentleman who hasn't been enlightened
You sound very young either in years or thought and it is a great pity that you are sticking to your very emotional language, which really won't cut any ice with those who have the power to change things.
Do you think that India should cut back its rapidly expanding defence budget in order to look after its poorest people with the aid that it is given or do you think that there should be some strings on that aid; strings of the sort that specify how that money is to be spent.
It really is much more complicated than your 'extended family of the world'point; a remark which should certain groups pick up on, it will be used as a weapon to say, 'those who want aid to continue are fluffy headed. They would rather people die of cancer in the UK than stop building palaces for dictators'
I know that isn't exactly what you said but that is how it could be presented. That would be a very great pity but it is a possibility.
we are human beings - we should value other human beings, regardless of their address
and people are deluded if they think aid money would be pumped into services for cancer patients or disabled children
(NB I love that, in the world of hyperbole Cancer 'sufferers' and disabled children are always more worthy than say HIV patients or disabled adults)
I mean imagine you are a Sudanese mother with a sick baby, no clean water and no hope of treatment....I bet you don't so much agree that a 'fully funded NHS' is more important. Or better still that the UK should make sure there are no defence cuts in preference to sending you a polio vaccine.
I have judged their loved ones lives as worth less than others?
What the hell is the whole of this thread but a massive load of people saying that the UK's 1st world problems are more important the developing worlds life and death problems?
I think everyone on here who has said outright that they don't give a stuff about the lives of babies in foreign countries should apologise.
Well I am not but my DM is...so I am not talking without experience....
That really is a very thoughtless thing to say, Icbineg.
By saying that the world is your extended family, you portray yourself as a rather silly sixth former and do your ultimate argument no good.
However, no one would wish a baby to die of any nationality if it could be saved but do you think that leaders of those countries who misappropriate that money (and some do) should have funds put into their hands jus because out of every £10 they are given, they might put twenty pence towards the good of the general population?
There really is no other reply to that other than 'no'. Therefore, another way of giving aid must be sought. It shouldn't be stopped but the way in which it is given needs urgent re considering.
Btw, an apology to all those reading your immature (doing you a favour here by believing it is immaturity rather than a bad heart) remarks and reeling because you may have judged their loved one's life to be worth less than others, may be the right thing to do.
& don't bother replying . I can't take anymore of this sanctimonious drivel.
< hides thread >
I'd like to show you what you've just written when you're a 50 year old cancer sufferer - I wonder would you really refuse all life saving drugs?
Given the direct choice between saving the life of a baby in Sudan and the life of a 50 year old in the UK, I would save the baby. Because the 50 year old has had a good crack at life....
A harder question would be would I choose for my tax to save the life of a UK baby over a Sudanese one....I like to think there isn't much in it.
Of course I would fall of the band wagon big time if asked if I would rather save my own baby or yours....
I guess all this means is that my extended family is the world, not the population of the UK alone.
19% of my taxes already go to treating people in the UK, why should I resent the 0.36% that stops children from dying of polio in Sudan?
Yes - Our own country needs sorting out before we throw millions at other countries. This country cannot solve the problems of the entire world
2. Was it a billion pounds a month? If that is what it is then I'm surprised the government say they can't afford 2 billion a year for a proper legal aid system here - though I agree with supporting aid in general terms.
3.Shocked and saddened.
can you articulate why though Tabitha?
I would say it was. We can't solve all the problems in the world, no matter how much money we throw at it.
hmm cancer sufferers....
Is it crazy to say that a child born in Sudan into crippling poverty, who will never have water or food security, whose life will be put at risk by every childhood disease going, might actually bite your hand off for the chance to become a 50 something cancer sufferer?
Is it really more important that my taxes be spent getting lifesaving treatment to a 50 something person in the UK than to a newborn baby in Sudan?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.