If the country is in that bad a state, then why dont we send less aid to other countrys?

[nomorebooze]

Am i not getting it? I dont think we should'nt help but FFS why cause all this money stress for our own when the goverment throws OUR money at other countries. Including wars etc which i dont feel is always for our countries safety or benefit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YANBU.

This money (although a drop in the ocean it's true) is sent to countries with e.g., the highest number of millionaires per capita, nuclear and space programmes, countries whose economies are due to eclipse ours by 2015 and those who are governed by militia and the money creamed off and sent to Switzerland.

Makes ya feel warm & fuzzy inside doesn't it?

good point skihorse!

Yes Ski

which is why there has to be a serious in depth look at how the system is right now (I presume you are including India in tehre?)
But soem of those countries have still very high levels of poverty and disease- village India and pakistan beingvery different from the affluenta reas of Mumbai and LaHore for example- so isn't necessarily wrong but has to be well targeted to be of any real value whatsoever.

I'd be intrigued at knwoing the take of people such as Christian Aid, Red Cross etc on how we target what we do spend. We ahd a debate at Uni on this and the truth is nobody could come up with a good solution- not even the chap leading the debate who led the global economy dept. I do wonder if we'd be better off funcing the most reputable agencies, red cross agin, medecins sans frontirees etc- and allowing them to spend as they see appropirate but haven't ever found any info on this.

thanks Thistledew, that's sort of what I thought but don't know the specifics very well.

I am doing some work at the moment with a Ugandan coffee producer who basically said the same thing - that disaster relief is much needed, but ongoing aid without clear purpose often serves to quash entrepreneurship and too much of it gets eaten up by bureaucracy and corruption.

sanctimoany - i agree with your posts - only one thing though, medecins sans frontieres will not take any government funding as otherwise they get associated with particular regimes.

...or why don't we freeze salaries of bankers and the big bosses in industry, rather than freezing the salaries of people earning £22k in the public sector?

...or why don't we stop spending shameful amounts fighting pointless wars in other people's countries?

YABU

One of the main reasons these countries are so poor is because of taxation and trade systems created by us in the west!So we have to take responsibility.

And no, aid doesn't work on its own. But it's essential for heping put people on the right road to helping themselves.

Maki I didn't know that but surely that laudable aim would not prevent them from aprticip[ating in at the very elast advisory work on targetting aid to where it should be?

We know that a massive amount doesn't make it to where it should go; we know that some people depends on what we send and that we don't have money to waste either.

So we need to get teh experts in running the4 show; I used to work in the charity sector and ex CEO's ofetn headed towards such committees after their term in office- becuase they knew what was really happening out there, and the ebst way to spend the money for maximum effect.

Even if MsF don't do it, there are a great many aid agencies whoa ctually manage to make mroe of a difference with less money than the state.

Because on balance aid is something that we benefit from. It contributes to security, securing resources and a lot of aid is actually spent here and contributes to the UK economy (ideally that shouldn't be the case, but it's where a lot of expertise is).

That's not to say there isn't a lot of bad spending or that we should ignore corruption - but it's too easy to view aid as throwing money at other countries

(and why on earth classify war as aid - that's a whole different kettle of fish)

And face it - there's a kind of historical pay back too; the west has well and truly built their wealth over the backs of Asia and Africa - and our banks and hedge funds are continuing to make money that way, speculating on the commodities that we have come to rely on

I'd be quite happy if we could start again - in return for stopping aid, western based multinationals gave up control of resources abroad and nations started to charge us prices that reflect proper wages, working conditions and welfare. I think you would be affected more that way than you are now... YABU

Its very little money that they send out for aid to other countries, we might be all fifty pence better off a week if they stopped, I would rather do with out that extra feww pence and know that aid is reaching families who dont know where their next meal is coming from, it's called human compassion, something that should be admired not frowned upon. Yes we are gonna have cut backs, and lots of us (including me) are going to struggle a bit more, but we will never have to live the dire situations, the hunger, lack of medicine, deadly water and fear of your life, in this country, that millions who recieve our aid do.

I for one would lose al faith in humanity if a full stop was put to charity and aid.

agree with whoingodsname -

From the DFID website -

"We deliver UKaid in many different ways so that it works effectively in different environments.

We continually monitor how we deliver aid so that more goes where it is needed. If we become aware of obstacles in a country, such as corruption or human rights abuses, we may stop our aid or change the way we deliver it.

Most UKaid from DFID goes to developing countries either directly or through an international body. In 2008/09, 27% went directly to governments, to spend on the priorities they set themselves for helping their citizens out of poverty."

When they give money direct to governments it is under extremely strict conditions and those governments need to fully account for how it's spent.

Look here too at Andrew Mitchell's speech-

www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Speeches-and-articles/2010/Full-transparency-and-new-independe nt-watchdog-will-give-UK-taxpayers-value-for-money-in-aid-/

Also - we as a nation promised to deliver a certain amount of aid. It would be moraly wrong to renege on that now.

morally

sancty - yes, I was including India - my post referring to millionaires, nuclear and economy. I don't know India - but I do know that the stupid fucking caste system makes me want to throw rocks at people. How can you let your own people filter sewage with their hands and hunt for rats to eat when you make millions upon millions?

(Found out a couple of months ago, ex-friend is now a Bollywood actress - I don't know how she can begin to reconcile her riches with the poverty she must see... )

Anna - what good would freezing bankers salaries do? These are not being paid out of the public purse, and the net result would be a lower tax take.

Most aid isn't real aid, it come with strings which actually boost our economy at the expense of the the country who receives the 'aid'. For example we will say to an African country that we will give them £20m, however, £10 million must be used to build roads etc that will be built by a British company so the money flows right back.

Alternatively they will say we will promise you £20m in 'aid' if you spend £10million with us on arms/defense and £10 buying British produce, food etc which stifles the aid recipients economy in terms of producing its own resources.

The corrupted leaders of these countries also get their cut and if they don't agree to give away their natural resources cheaply or actually try to help their people, we get regime change/staged coup where the rebels all seem to have western made guns and mysterious funding sources (read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) and the people get nothing. The Economist once calculated that 10x more money flows out of Africa to western countries than the continent receives in aid.

'Aid' is a con to make us feel we're helping but we're making the situation worse as does giving money to NGOs such as Oxfam which do nothing more than provide gap years for students who drive around in 4x4s and stay in nice hotels in order to build a well whilst spending millions on adverts with kids with giant bellies and flies on their faces looking helpless to guilt trip us in to continuing to provide money for student gap years and more adverts...

Cutting aid and boosting trade, getting rid of subsidies that protect European/US farmers and manufacturers from fair overseas competition such as the fishing and dairy subsidies will really help poorer countries improve but its not in our interests to let them become wealthier. How is it that much of the chocolate we eat originally came from Ghana but Ghana is not allowed under trade restrictions to manufacture chocolate? Instead Ghana has to send the raw cocoa product to Western countries where its finished off and packaged up and the Western countries can charge a huge mark-up on it when the original cocoa producers get pennies? How is that counties in East africa cannot send flowers directly to the UK market, they have to sell the flowers cheaply to places like Jersey who then package them up and send them to the UK mainland at a huge mark-up.

Sorry for the rant but it bothers me when I hear people think the UK is actually being altruistic or philanthropic with regards to aid. Its all business for our benefit.

capricorn - as does giving money to NGOs such as Oxfam which do nothing more than provide gap years for students who drive around in 4x4s and stay in nice hotels in order to build a well whilst spending millions on adverts with kids with giant bellies and flies on their faces looking helpless to guilt trip us in to continuing to provide money for student gap years and more adverts...

Sorry, you are DEEPLY misguided!!!I work for an NGO and that is totally untrue and very unfair!!How ignorant!

With a country like India though, I really think we shouldn't be sending aid.

Yes there are people who are living in shocking conditions, but the only way that is going to change long term and stay that way is if the country develops it's own moral consciousness. And countries like Britain sending in aid just delays that process happening.

The millionaires run companies that make huge profits. Those companies employ people at low wages and have actually taken very large numbers of jobs away from Britain. Britain sends aid to India to prop up rural economy there, allowing said millionaires to continue to ignore the problem and keep the status quo - ie. low wages (on an international scale) which enable them to undercut British companies.

We are doing ourselves, and the poor of India, no favours whatsoever.

And capricorn, organisations like Oxfam campaign to change trade laws to help peope out of poverty - donating to them helps them to do this.

capricorn - I couldn't agree more. An old friend from our A-level days "works" for MsF - she has an apartment on the west bank (Paris, bien sur ) and the last time I heard she had a villa just outside Mogadishu, bodyguards, 4x4, cigarettes, Jack Daniels, expensive restaurants and armed guards for when she wanted to spend a day sunbathing in Eitrea.

Got enough friends working in Africa to know what really goes on.

capricorn - you're absolutely right on all your points about trades and subsidies. I disagree with your assessment of NGOs though - and I think that sadly, in the absensce of political will to tackle the real issues, targeted aid is the best option left. It's greenwash - but at least greenwash that does improve lives for some.

skihorse...you are so wrong...so sad you believe that.

It is really important to remember that most NGOs not only deliver aid but ALSO campaign to change the systems which make people poor such as trade and tax and climate change.

I am Indian. For many years, we tried the socialist system where no one was allowed to become rich and we were all relatively poor together. That didn't work. Now we are trying the capitalist system, hoping wealth trickles down. The problem with capitalism is that you can have a booming economy and millionaires on the one hand, and dire poverty on the other. I don't know what the solution isone can argue for hours on the ineffectiveness of the Indian government but I do know that millions still need aid. Please remember that there is no social security in India, no public housing, no benefits, and a huge population. Most people in Britain have a place to live and food to eat; most people in India don't. The Indian economy has an 8% growth rate, but remember that this growth is only benefiting those at the top of the pyramid. As for how to benefit those at the bottom, it will take a cleverer person than me to figure that out. It's not as simple as blaming the caste system; there are myriad complex causes.

My husband was very poor and has now worked his way up. We donate 10-20% of our salary every month to charities in India. I cannot reconcile myself to the poverty I see on my visits to India, but frankly I cannot afford to support the whole country. I am doing what I can and hope to do more. Maybe your friend the Bollywood actress is doing the same? Many Indian millionaires, btw, do charity work. But supporting 1 billion people is probably beyond most of them.

Okay maybe I was harsh on the NGOs. Not all NGOs are the same but some ARE like that and I know a Congolese person who can confirm it. The NGOs in her case all stayed in the best hotels, did the odd project and drove around in 4x4s. It was a if they were using the donations to create a job for themselves. Things are sometimes seen in a different way but by the locals than the NGOs but I apologise if I tarred all with the same brush as there are many with their heart in the right place and do very good things. I did mention Oxfam for a reason because I used to donate to them until I found out in the marketing press that they spent £1m on a celeb filled ad campaign then scrapped it and made another one. That's not what my money was for but I'm sorry if I took that out on all NGOs, that was out of order.

I did forget to add a couple of things though. Much aid never gets to the country in the first place. As aid is often combined with loans, the aid recipient often ends up paying back much more to the donating country than they borrowed creating a vicious cycle. Thus there are countries who 'owe' up to $80cents in the dollar. When you have millions of half starved people and no tax base as they don't have any jobs, you have no option but to borrow more at high interest (as all of these countries have a low credit rating) which increases the debt. Its the same as if some some desperate hard-up woman borrows money at 1000% interest from a loan shark as she has no other way of getting money and she has a bunch of screaming kids to feed with no income. The 'aid' givers are the loan sharks and in both cases they are exploiting the desperate.