Chancellor cuts International Aid budget

The aid budget is a percentage of GDP, as the GDP falls so does the aid.

It seems a particularly unnecessary and mean cut.

Is the fact that India has a space programme the reason why we need to spend a ridiculous amount of money on defence, including space, lemongrove.

I would oppose the cut if the money was actually improving the lives of people in other countries. However, we regularly hear that vast amounts end up in the pockets of middlemen and foreign officials so if our “soft power” aims are to make chums of corrupt people overseas we’ve been on a winner for years. Of course aid charities are up in arms - they can see their own gravy train, already hit by COVID, getting smaller. And don’t get me started on the hypocrisy of the media who today are busy bleating about how terrible the cut is - by next week they’ll be back to screeching about all the money we’re wasting overseas.

Tell that to the couple of million who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own,Riverwalk.

I bet they don't feel rich !

If you read the papers, China and India are richer than we are.

I think foreign aid should be sent only when there are disasters eg earthquakes, tsunamis etc. That money is really needed here.

dfidnews.blog.gov.uk/2019/01/05/uk-aid-support-in-corrupt-countries/

www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/uk-aid-against-2-trillion-lost-corruption/

The money really isn't needed here. The government can create as much money as it needs, its only real constraint is inflation. But inflation is not a problem at the moment.

There is no reason to cut the aid budget

gimms.org.uk/

Can those here who are in danger of losing their homes go cap in hand to the government and get a handout as quick as foreign aid is sent ? I'd be knocking at No.10 if I was them.
Where's the rescue package for them ?
Sorry, but charity begins at home.

Unless of course those who wish foreign aid to remain as it is puts their own hands in their pockets ?

When even the Daily Telegraph is carrying stories saying that the cuts are a bad idea, you know it must be pretty extreme.

tidyskatemum says I would oppose the cut if the money was actually improving the lives of people in other countries.

Quote from a former Tory minister in the Telegraph - Andrew Mitchell, former international development secretary, told MPs the cuts would cause "100,000 preventable deaths, mainly among children".

Does keeping them alive count as improving their lives?

Can I ask those who are against the cut what choice they would make:

You have a limited amount of money, you have a choice, help your neighbour who has lost their job and is struggling to feed the family and keep a roof over their head or you can send money to another country where it is not certain that money will be used to help a struggling family.

Simplistic yes, but this is basically the choice the Chancellor has.

Over the years the UK has sent billions of pounds in foreign aid and every year we get reports of money being syphoned off by corrupt officials and governments.

How much money has been sent to provide clean water to people in Africa, appeals which I recall donating to as a teenager over 50 years ago, where was all that money spent?

Well Oldwoman70, that's not the choice we're faced with, is it? Let's try this one: Would you rather spend £10bn on saving children's lives, or on PPE contracts for Government ministers' cronies?

Our aid will still be more than a good many countries donate, including many in Europe, inc. France, the US and Australia.

I agree that we should help those people who are in dire straits but there has to be some accountability as to where that money goes. Lining the pocket of a dictator when his people are starving is so very wrong.
I think that cutting the percentage of aid that we give is the right thing to do at the present time.

You have a limited amount of money, you have a choice, help your neighbour who has lost their job and is struggling to feed the family and keep a roof over their head or you can send money to another country where it is not certain that money will be used to help a struggling family.

Simplistic yes, but this is basically the choice the Chancellor has.

No. That is not the choice the Chancellor has. It's what he'd like you to believe, though.

The government will never run short of money. A national economy is not the same as a household economy. The government actually issues all our money (where did you all think it came from? Out of thin air?) and it can issue as much as it likes so long as it keeps inflation down to a reasonable level. Paying out 0.75% of our GDP is not going to make any difference to what can be spent in this country.

Sorry, should be 0.7%

I'd happily pay more tax to keep this 0.7%

We are a wealthy country and as it is, this money is not all "gifted" by any means.

I have absolutely no idea what charity begins at home means, why on earth would I help a person in Cornwall who I have never met over a person in Africa who I have never met. What on earth difference does it make.

Alegrias2 I wouldn't rely on anything Andrew Mitchell says. He gave £16million to Rwanda, against UN edicts, as they were supplying arms to rebels in Congo. If the aid reduction makes officials focus on where the aid is going so that it actually does save lives and not line pockets so much the better.

tidyskatemum- Well said.

Totally agree with Quizqueen and Avalon charity begins at home, for now at least, we are apparently already in debt,
It is up to other countries Governments to look after their own people
I think we always help,and should in in emergencies
If David Cameron is so bothered let him help,he is alright Jack, what about the poor of this country, people losing jobs ,and even businesses

That's okay, Galaxy, you help a person in Africa and I'll help one on home ground in Cornwall.
I also support charities here before I'd support those abroad do you ?

tidyskatemum

Alegrias2 I wouldn't rely on anything Andrew Mitchell says. He gave £16million to Rwanda, against UN edicts, as they were supplying arms to rebels in Congo. If the aid reduction makes officials focus on where the aid is going so that it actually does save lives and not line pockets so much the better.

Fair enough. I guess we'll find out.