Sunday, November 4, 2012

Only half?

They don't get it, they really just don't get it...
The International Development Secretary will this week unveil plans to slash Britain’s controversial £280 million-a-year aid budget to India.
Justine Greening will outline how the payments could be reduced amid claims the country is too rich to need handouts.
Sources suggest that Miss Greening may cut the subsidies by up to half.
The move comes amid mounting criticism that Britain’s overseas aid programme – which is set to reach more than £12 billion by 2014 – cannot be justified at a time of spending cuts back home.
However, The Mail on Sunday understands that Ms Greening will merely divert money sent to India to poorer countries – not cut the overall aid budget.
In a time of economic crisis, in times when cuts are being made at home, the first thing to go should be foreign aid. If indeed the government should actually be giving our money without our permission to foreigners anyway. I've always maintained that charity should begin at home and that governments should not under any circumstances be giving taxpayers cash to any charities at home or abroad. Yes that definitely includes the fake charities suckling at the taxpayer teat in order to tell the government what it wants to hear, rather than what the public want.
Given my way I'd scrap the Dept for International Development, I'd stop any payments to fake charities or indeed any charity directly from the government, if they want my money, they can bloody well ask me directly. I'd take a chain saw to the likes of any government funded bodies that do not serve a useful purpose (looking at you Quango's) and remove the green tariff on energy bills.
Any spare cash left could either go to reduce taxes, or remove as much of the fuel duty as I could in order to really kick start the economy by giving people more money to spend at home.
I know it's human nature to want to help those less fortunate than ourselves, but frankly we have enough of those at home. Government ought to realise this as much as the taxpayers do...

2 annotations:

Anonymous said...

Britain requires to give a certain amount of money in order that it can sit in, as a member, on G8 meetings.

If Britain did not do the overseas aid thing Cameron would be excluded from that club.

It's rather like spending £100 billion on nuclear weapons which really are under America's control (so much so that they are included in America's tally of WMDs). If Britain refused to pay teat £100 billion out to keep these weapons (which will never be used) up to date, it would be thrown off the Permanent membership of the Security Council of the UN.

And Cameron wouldn't have a voice in world affairs (not that he has one anyway, because America decides Britain's policy).

Were Britain to lose G8 and Security Council membership it would look like Britain was poor.

Which of course it is.

But Mr Cameron is trying to save money by killing off people who are on Incapacity Benefit, and some older people too.

So all is not lost.

India has begged Britain not to send it aid, which is always directed at the wrong people, with incredible and unbelievable incompetence.

There are people dying of the cold right now in Britain, and every week, on average 32 people that ATOS has declared fit for work, die.

Now perhaps Mr Cameron would like to give them some aid... ah no, that doesn't count for membership of the G8... Tough'll just have to die.

Still unlikely that any of them went to Eton, so that's OK.

Anonymous said...

India like Pakistan chose to become a nuclear power. That puts them in the Big Boys Sandpit. Big Boys Games = Big Boys Rules, so NO aid whatsoever. If they have poor etc, well they should have thought about that first not waited for us to fund their Mars Probe. Even Africans have realised the massive problems "aid" creates.