Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to ask if you agree that we "should not be sending aid to bongo bongo land"

217 replies

ICBINEG · 07/08/2013 09:22

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???
OP posts:
catgirl1976 · 07/08/2013 18:45

No
No
No

Pixieonthemoor · 07/08/2013 18:50
  1. Yes
  2. Of course we should keep sending it (although I am a bit Hmm that India has a space programme whilst the poverty of some of their people is appalling)
  3. Doesn't surprise me - he struck me as a total tosspot
colleysmill · 07/08/2013 18:52

No

No but I think foreign aid should be like all areas of public spending and subject to scrutiny and assessments to whether it is actually reaching the projects and people for which it was sent.

Isn't Bongo Bongo land where all the Mazda Bongos come from?

HaveIGotPoosForYou · 07/08/2013 19:02
  1. Part of it.
  2. No I don't think it should be stopped completely but I'd like to see where it's all going and how it's helping, so we know we are sending it to the right places.
  3. Yes, I'm not surprised to be honest with you. UKIP have some valid points in some areas but make themselves look like a complete ass when it comes to others. If they could only tone it down a bit, they may have a point i.e. needing to control immigration but not making it about race, but about population size and employment.

I couldn't help laugh though when I heard BongoBongoLand. I thought it was some made up place that a kid came up with, like a bounceycastle land or something like that. :)

ShellyBoobs · 07/08/2013 19:35
  1. No
  2. No
  3. Yes because he's from UKIP, so nothing he says surprises me.
JaquelineHyde · 07/08/2013 20:25
  1. No, but I am a Radio4 listener.
  1. No.
  1. Saddened but not surprised, this is UKIP we are talking about, I think you have to sign up to use language like this on a daily basis if you want to become a party member.
SarahAndFuck · 08/08/2013 00:12

flatpack - I didn't know that, thank you.

ICBINEG · 08/08/2013 00:16

whoop whoop MEP proved wrong at the 0.01 confidence level again Grin

OP posts:
RussianBlu · 08/08/2013 01:31

I thought the interview on the channel 4 news tonight with Krishnan Guru-Murthy was hilarious.

MyBaby1day · 08/08/2013 04:00
  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. No, it's an awful thing to say, you don't say things like that anymore!. It was racist and he should be sacked from whatever position he holds!.
niceguy2 · 08/08/2013 04:10

I hate the stupid 'logic' that we should cut foreign aid because we have doctors and hospitals which need the money more.

Why must we always boil everything down to that? We can supply that argument to everything the government spends on. Why give money to the arts? Why not keep the TV license money? Why spend money fixing roads when we need nurses to keep people alive?

The foreign aid budget is tiny in comparison to the overall budget and to keep focusing on this is about as annoying as the obsession on benefit fraud when most of our money is spent/wasted elsewhere

Mimishimi · 08/08/2013 04:47

1.No

  1. Yes (rife with corruption both on our end and the recipients). Do believe money is better spent on local services.
  2. Yes
Sparklymommy · 08/08/2013 07:06

1: No.
2: no, but I do think it needs to be better distributed. For example we are still sending aid to China... Who don't need or even want it!
3: just Shock no one should use such terms. Even if they are UKIP!

TheRealFellatio · 08/08/2013 07:11

Yes Oblomov I thought that too.

TheRealFellatio · 08/08/2013 07:13

He has done what I call a 'Classic Daily Mail.' Which is the art of having something arguably important to say, but saying it such a way that no-one can take you seriously.

Cerisier · 08/08/2013 07:19

The Bongo thing makes me laugh as one of the very nice restaurants at the Night Safari here in Singapore is called Bongo Burgers. Nobody is offended at the name.

To answer the questions:

  1. no
  2. yes and no- I think that sending money to places like Pakistan and China is ridiculous, the money should go to victims of disasters and to alleviate starvation and help stop diseases
  3. ha ha ha
Lazyjaney · 08/08/2013 07:36

He has done what I call a 'Classic Daily Mail.' Which is the art of having something arguably important to say, but saying it such a way that no-one can take you seriously

I disagree - it wasn't aimed at Guardian readers and the media chatterati, that's not UKIPs constituency. I think the people it was aimed at absolutely got it, just search Twittter.

Lazyjaney · 08/08/2013 07:43

whoop whoop MEP proved wrong at the 0.01 confidence level again

You are mistakenly thinking "No, but" means the same as No. It's how people who don't want to be seen to agree with UKIP, do agree :)

Toadinthehole · 08/08/2013 07:45
  1. No.
  1. No - first, because the UK takes much more from the third world than it gives in return and second, because aid constitutes diplomacy and influence on the world stage.
  1. Yes, and I expect the UKIP top brass are having a good laugh about it.
TheRealFellatio · 08/08/2013 07:48

No think you are misunderstanding me. Of course some people got it, just as some people nod along in agreement to the DM. What I mean is that the point he was trying to make about foreign aid was a good one; we do need to look carefully about where our money is going and make sure it is sensibly targeted. But his choice of phrase and his general tone of delivery has detracted from any valid point he may have and, and all we take from it is the message that he is small minded and xenophobic.

It is ironic that we all know Bongo Bongo Land is a euphemism for all or any tin pot African states with ever changing names due to being in a permanent state of flux - and they are the ones who most need our aid. Not India, not China, not Argentina. so again, he started off with the bones of a good argument and then ruined it!

ladymariner · 08/08/2013 08:05
  1. no

  2. yes

  3. yes......

Lazyjaney · 08/08/2013 08:23

But his choice of phrase and his general tone of delivery has detracted from any valid point he may have and, and all we take from it is the message that he is small minded and xenophobic

Only liberals will see it as Xenophobic. Read Twitter rather than MN and the Guardian to see how it was taken in general. The point resonated far further than if it had been made in a more careful, PC way.

FreudiansSlipper · 08/08/2013 09:40

yes
No
Yes not really that shocked sadly

babybythesea · 08/08/2013 10:33

I haven't yet read the whole thread but will add my numbers anyway as I might not get to finish it before the baby starts squawking!

  1. Yes.
  2. No, not in any way shape or form, although better practice at delivering it needs to be a priority.
  3. I know people think it, but to say it like that? Cannot believe he thought it was appropriate, on any level, whether to shock or because he didn't think it through, or whatever.

With regards to the charity giving, I would agree that being somebody worthy of help because you were unlucky enough to be born into horrible living conditions doesn't change whether you are born in Africa, South America, or the UK.

But I think there is a wider point. We can only stop giving, as a nation, when we stop screwing these countries over.

Examples:
During the South Africa football cup, a deal agreed with that needy little company, coca cola, prevented street vendors who normally sell within certain distances of the stadiums from selling there as coca cola had bought exclusive rights to the area, somehow. News story from the time says : "Regulations imposed by football's world governing body Fifa on host countries stipulate that no-one but its commercial partners be allowed trade or promote their products in the immediate vicinity of all World Cup sites." It effectively banned the livelihoods of the street vendors for the duration of the world cup.

Tax avoidance - legal but morally dodgy: "In one case a single - entirely legal - transaction through UK-linked tax havens would have provided $2.2 billion in tax if it had not taken place offshore, according to the Indian government. This is almost enough money to provide every Indian primary school child with a subsidised midday meal for an entire year. In another example, 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 know it's being done to us in the UK through companies like google and amazon, but we are also helping it happen to developing countries - would they need as much aid if we could sort out these tax issues?

And then the issues we're all aware of. Like the sweat shops using cheap labour to produce clothes. We can't hand people a double whammy, saying on the one hand we refuse to buy clothes at a price which means you get a decent salary because we are poor (although we have medical help and clean water and education regardless...) but at the same time insist that our own poverty means we cannot help. Stay where you are making my dirt-cheap clothes ....

Comparing the reaction of oil companies to their 'mistakes' is interesting. Millions was ploughed into the US after the oil spill there. It's an ongoing issue in the Niger Delta too. Is there any money going to support people whose livelihoods are affected there? Umm, not so much.

So I think if we want to stop aid, then we also have to accept that activities of developed countries are impacting developing countries, in some cases preventing people from getting out of poverty (or even preventing them from earning at all, or being healthy) and do something drastic to sort that out.

ICBINEG · 08/08/2013 11:04

Lazey hmm well I tried to include 'no but' if people were saying we could do more with the money we do send abroad...I mean that is a truism right? All money could be better spent...that wasn't his point at all....his point was spend it at home not away.

I hope I didn't count too many people who said 'no but I do think we should spend more money here and less on foreign aid' ...although some may have escaped the net :)

OP posts: