to think that overseas aid should be diverted to those affected by the flooding

[Ohbehave1]

What the title says really. Especially from places like india who can afford a space program and nuclear power

I disagree.

UK is one of the richest countries in the world, and should not cut its assistance to others less fortunate. It's great that when there are major natural disasters (eg in Pakistan) the government finds more to give.

If any of the aid budget is being spent in inappropriate ways, that does need to be tackled, then the funds released can be reassigned to other overseas projects (there is a process for this to happen).

Finding the cash to deal with emergencies in the UK can and should be found from elsewhere. A lot will fall to the departmental budgets of those who deal with the aftermath, as they are funded anyhow to have the capabilities and actually using them is only marginal extra.

Maybe instead of overseas aid we divert the bombing Syria funds into something positive...
I never get these 'it has to be one or the other' ideas. We are a rich country that wastes huge amounts of money in keeping the rich, rich and then divvy up the crumbs amongst the poor. Let's stop ridiculous bonuses to public servants, make massive corporations pay their taxes and then help all those who need it!!!

YANBU. The overseas aid budget needs ruthless pairing down. I do believe we should help countries through debt forgiveness schemer, infrastructure project funding and emergency aid.

However the performance and funding of The Enviornment agency is causing misery for thousands in the uk and should be a priority. Just watch Prince Charles in next few days, bet he sticks to it to Cameron again over poor flood responses and prevention

No I don't agree :)

You do know one of the reasons Syrians are leaving refugee camps in Jordan is because the UNHCR has had to cut rations?

Syrians are bringing themselves to Europe (and washing up dead on European beaches) because we're not giving enough funds to do the cheap and from our point of view efficient thing of feeding them in situ.

Yanbu. My heart goes out to all those effected and the money promised by the gov seems so little based on how many people have been effected by the floods.

Meditrina - are you saying a major works player like India is worthy of aid? I am not talking about poor countries or in the case of a natural disaster ( although I do think that India could divert money from its space program rather than take our money).

Oh if you understood how aid works... Overseas aid is a murky and unpleasant business. We get contracts and UK firms do very well out of it. Don't be thinking it is done out of the kindness of our hearts.

I do think we could maybe stop funding violent dictators then looking all surprised when they turn out not to be fluffy bunnies.

YABU. We should be supporting people in need, at home or abroad, instead of giving tax breaks to those who don't need them at all.

Overseas aid often has strings. ie we give you this money for you to buy this from us.

Please have my first ever

It's not one or the other. Those poor Syrians barely existing in refugee camps or drowning in the Mediterranean are just as human and worthy of our support (and cash) as the victims of flooding who've lost their homes and businesses. Nationality doesn't come into it for me. The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. There's no reason why we can't support multiple causes. We could do even more if Osbourne didn't pander to the "I'm all right, Jack" brigade and corporations paid the full amount of tax - avoidance may be legal but it certainly isn't ethical.

Someone on my Facebook was complaining about the government matching the money people donate to water aid. Water aid is trying to get clean water and sanitation to some of worlds poorest children. The floods in the UK are awful but I don't think babies in York are dying of water borne diseases. How about a government that invested in vital infrastructure to prevent the floods ( creating real jobs) or a bit of centralised planning? I might get accused of being a socialist with this idea.

Tied aid went out a long time ago.

Syria has been mentioned a lot and of course I don't mean aid for people like the Syrian refugees who need all the help they can get.

And I have to say that the comments seem to be dismissive of those in need in the floods up north. The floods don't chose whose property they flood or differentiate between business and residential property.

And for some they will have lost literally everything. And may not to be able to afford insurance so they will have nowhere to live and no clothes possessions etc.

Or it may be a small business owner who will lose everything, will not survive and will put people out of work having a devastating effect on many families.

Britain was due to end bilateral aid to India by end 2015

Has that not happened?

Mrs Pratchett raises an interesting point. Aid spending by the UK and other governments is not entirely motivated by altruism. The government's aid strategy specifically sets out how aid can serve Britain's national interests (available in the DfID website).

Let's hope you never have need to rely on foreign aid, OP.

Is the North overseas?

What do you mean by tied funding? Is this the same as matched funding which still exists?

Why can't we redistribute wealth and opportunities in the UK instead of stopping aid to the desperately poor overseas?
London got themselves some seriously decent flood defences a few decades ago. We couldn't have the politically, social and fiscal elite getting their feet wet could we

OP, are you being deliberately obtuse?

It's not "save the flood victims" or "spend the money in people overseas". Most commentators who disagree with you seem to saying that BOTH groups are equally "deserving" of financial assistance. We should therefore support both groups, not take from one to give to the other.

I haven't seen a single comment that's dismissive of the recent floods and the suffering inflicted by them.

It doesn't need to be an either or situation. We are capable of doing both.

India no longer receives foreign aid from the UK. And we don't give out "aid" to other countries out of good old British generosity. We direct those funds into places where it is in our own political and economic interest to do so. It's not "aid" at all.