£60 million to go to Pakistan

What about the poor here? Giving away £60 million to a country that has a nuclear capability - absolutely bloody shocking

Development money is not just a matter of bleeding hearts. Think about it: if poor countries get less poor, their people become more educated and healthier, more able to travel to/study in the UK [ie spend money here], their governments and people become more able to buy British exports; they would be less likely to be caught up in illegal activity affecting the UK, eg drugs/people/arms trafficking, terrorism, whatever else you can think of, and you hope you get into a virtuous circle of greater prosperity leading to better services provided for people and more responsible governance, with more prosperous, less needy people, and a more stable country overall.

And it shouldn't be an embarrassment that there's an element of self-interest in development strategy, as long as there's also room for speedy humanitarian responses when situations demand them. And we're lucky here that there are some extremely capable aid agencies based in the UK - that often work very closely with the British government - which can be part of the solution.

If Pakistan collapses, this will be an awful lot worse - not to mention more expensive - for Britain than forking out an extra £60 million to help alleviate the immediate impact of the floods.

The problem is countries want more babies to work when they grow and make more money and more babies that need more houses and so on and they can all pay more tax.
The problem is they build their houses on flood plains, The same is happening in USA and UK. More houses need more drains because of more consumption of water, nobody thinks about where the water is going when it rains.
If they thought about it a bit more and built where the water would not go and made drains big enough then they wouldnt have the problem in the first place. Besides there is plenty of money in Pakistan, their problem is there is the very rich, and the very poor, its all a matter of distribution of wealth.

I was surprised that while the government was happy to slash budgets arbitrarily across the board at 25%, they did not cut the foreign aid budget.. why?

complimentary - That is why the money is not going to the government, it is going to aid agencies as the others said. That way it can actually get to the people rather than the "fatcats" in the government who do not give a damn about the people.

Sparkyjules. Why is it vile? Why are we giving money to a country that is so corrupt? The money does not go to the people anyway. This country needs the 60million especially now!

how can anyone class this as racist or veiled racism??? people are entitled to their own views...people probably felt the same when their was the tsunami but the racism card wouldnt have been pulled out, as soon as its pakistan things change. personally if I had family their my opinion may be a little differnt, 60 million shared betwee everyone in this country is hardly anything, but still if people feel different that isnt racist in anyway, stupid to even bring that up.

Aid agencies are fantastic bodies set up and ready to go at any emergency. They don't pick and choose which human beings to help they just do the job in hand.

Didn't we give to China? This is a country in the black too!

It's the human thing to do, especially as aid is needed without it these people would not get the right help from their government would they?

Aid is the right and proper way to help any country in need.

However as a nuclear power I imagine that Pakistan could probably afford to repay the aid agencies when the current crisis is over.

As America has done since Hurricane Katrina.

Why do we give money outside exceptional circumstances? As a foreign policy tool.

Well, if their government won't spend their money wisely we need to supplement it. If the government steals it we need to send more than they can steal. Saying "oh well, if they can't look after themselves screw them" is just defeatist.

WHat posie said.

And I really want to post "There's a secret plan to kill all donkey's - repost this!" on my FB status now.

I didn't know who Mr 10% was either, but this is it

The purpose of items like this with 'repost' are to make the original poster feel important. You also get them with txt msgs, emails and so on.

They are started by immature people who need this boost to their ego and the actual subject is beside the point. They get reposted by stupid people who see 'repost' and think they have to.

Next week you may see "There's a secret plan to kill all donkey's - repost this!"

Of course often it is wrong for politicians to generously give money away when their own citizens need it.

You can make a case for Pakistan because they didn't know they were going to have a natural disaster, but we also give money to people who spent all theirs on bullets to kill their neighbours.

What the government gives in foreign aid has nothing to do with poorly equipped troops.

I have no problem with giving aid in these exceptional circumstances ie the flooding it is the right thing to do, these people need it and our country has an admirable record in responding to such disasters. However I do think the overseas aid question (outside of exceptional circumstances) needs to be addressed. Why do we give aid to each year to countries like pakistan when they spend billions on nuclear weapons. Can anyone give a rationale for that?

yes i am serious - who is mr 10%?

WTF? Are you serious?

Who is mr 10%?

who is mr 10%?

Actually why shouldn't this issue be raised?

Mr 10% opened a bank account in 1997 called "Capricorn Holdings" which had 100 million in it... wonder if he's got any more cash now?

Why on earth should my boyfriend be send to Iraq and have to buy his own boots (true) and Mr. 10% doesn't do anything.

Wonder if he'll take 6 mill off that 60? :(