The government is to reduce the water aid budget by 80%

Surprisingly good and straightforward article from Sky News about why cutting the aid budget is not just immoral, but it will come back to bite us very quickly. Well targeted aid was something we had got quite good at, but the DFID has been abolished.

news.sky.com/story/foreign-aid-cuts-not-only-a-tragedy-for-the-developing-world-but-the-uk-too-12290228

For the want of a nail.

Alegrias. That’s a very interesting article . Thanks .

Of course in times of crisis aid should be sent, that's a completely different matter,but as has been said,where have all the millions that have been sent over the years gone? India is a rich country, surely their government should at least provide basic necessities. Why are people still living in abject poverty and using the Ganges for their domestic needs? Why arent the townships of South Africa now almost a thing of the past? Of course it is a difficult continent but surely these countries should be further forward than some are after all these years of aid. Corrupt governments?!

India are too busy building a rocket to Venus aren't they ?

Whitewavemark2

Those exercised on aid to India are clearly not aware that no aid is given to the Indian government.

Money is invested in various industries and technologies, like the vaccine production.

So basically we are giving £107million to India to make vaccines amongst other things, and then what? Presumably if that leads to actual items being produced the UK is then buying them. Instead of investing in actual industries in the UK to produce things that the UK could sell to other countries we buy back things we have funded. I bit like Manchester United selling Paul Pogba for next to nothing and then buying him back for a fortune, I suppose.
When the UK makes no insulin apart from pig insulin it seems a bonkers way to behave;how about the government providing money for a start-up for that?

We don't give India money to make us vaccines through Development Aid. Your view is desperately naïve Loislovesstewie, sorry. We invest in their companies, share knowledge and expertise so that they can develop their own industries. Their society then develops and the whole world gets better.

Irrespective of what certain aspects of today's UK society will tell you, we can't survive alone in this world. Improved standards of living in any country benefit us all. Its not being soft and its not altruism.

We have a responsibility to the whole world, along with all the other developed nations, to build a more stable world for everybody. And we're shirking. Please read the article I posted earlier. It's a 2 minutes read.

Alegrias1; I am not naive, I am responding to the comment re vaccine production. If not vaccine production then what else do we set up /fund / give advice/knowledge to produce and then have to purchase at over inflated prices? Do you not see that is possible ? Instead of making an item in the UK;like insulin, we buy it from abroad thus doing ourselves out of jobs for people here and the profits from UK companies selling it to others.
I also understand how 'the whole world gets better' if other countries improve. My argument is that it's not better, is it? We are being told on a daily basis that there are countries without clean water, toilets, there are girls needing an education etc. Turn on the TV and see advertisements by charities asking us to donate, and it has been that way for all of my conscious life. I can remember being at school aged 5 and being asked to donate to a charity for 'the starving babies in Africa'. I was the poorest child in that class, but I was under pressure to ask mum for money she didn't have to give to the charity that my teacher supported, and it's still continuing 60 years later. People gave money to LiveAid thinking that would end starvation and before that the Concert for Bangladesh took place for exactly the same reason. Meanwhile, we have swathes of the UK where people live in poverty and no-one cares. I have seen at first-hand homes where people live appalling lives, I said in my post that we should be investing in the UK, I don't feel a responsibility for the whole world I am afraid. I am too busy worrying about my small corner of it. After a lifetime of working in the public sector I understand how rubbish life is for too many people who live near me. They are far more real to me because I see them every day. Invest in people here first.

And the last point I would make is that too often we are creating dependency on the UK to solve problems.

Clearly we will have to agree to differ.

I didn't say you were naïve, I said your view is naïve.

Your idea that by empowering other countries we only make life difficult for ourselves by exporting jobs and making products more expensive. Naïve. What's your solution? Keep them in poverty?

If anyone thought Live Aid was going to cure poverty, then they were...hopelessly optimistic. If anyone thinks, well we've tried and there are still poor people - what should we do then? Just give up? You don't feel responsible for the whole world? Well I'm glad there are some who do.

I know there are people here who live in poverty. I have eyes. I can also see the thousands dying every day in Syria, Yemen.....

By improving other countries' societies we are not making them dependent on the UK, we are empowering them to be independent.

But yes, we'll agree to differ.

Just because some here in the UK live desperate lives doesn't excuse us, in my opinion.

The UK does not give Aid for wholly altruistic purposes, and I believe cutting the ODA budget from 0.7% or GDP to 0.5% will prove to be very short sighted.

Apart from the fact that more children will go hungry, more women will die in childbirth and fewer children will go to school, the UK will have less influence and respect in the world.

The ODA budget has always been unpopular with Tory voters, so this isn’t a surprise, but as the UK struggles to maintain a position of international power, especially post Brexit, Britain’s role as a leading donor is (or was) an important factor.

Cutting aid must have far reaching implications on encouraging and enabling trade with emerging markets, to our disadvantage, and also promoting peace and democracy for starters.

Alegrias1

If a person was dying on your doorstep for the want of a glass of water, would you tell them sorry, I can't help you, your government has a space program?

Totally different situation - of course if someone on my doorstep needed a glass of water I would give it to them, because I would know it was going where needed, but if someone was on my doorstep collecting money to buy someone a bottle of water I would refuse

Sending aid to other countries doesn't mean depriving our own citizens. Despite what the tories would like people to believe (particularly this gang of brexiteers who conned you into believing that paying our contribution to the EU meant we couldn't fund the NHS). As the government has the power to issue as much money as it needs (and boy, is it doing that to fill the pockets of its friends and relations) it doesn't have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Not investing in UK citizens is a political choice, not a necessity.

What baffles me is that nobody seems to expect the governments of these countries to bear any responsibility for the welfare of their people, why not? Do we just accept that they are a succession of corrupt governments who will never improve can never be criticised, their unfortunate citizens lives will never progress beyond a certain point owing to being governed by people who care little or nothing for them in the most basic way and that the dependence on aid is a reality till the end of time? Why does nobody call out these despots?

Corrupt governments eh? Those in glass houses.........

I believe that Foreign Aid should not have a target, it makes the people in charge waste money, they have to spend it within the time limit, similar to Local Government who spend a lot of money in March so as not to lose money. I was watching a film about a refugee camp in Kenya, the drought was over and the women wanted to go home but the men wanted to stay and live off aid, the women naturally wanted aid cut so they could go home. I do not think they care about where the aid comes from, so saying that it promotes the UK is rubbish. I think the money should go first to looking after our elderly, it is a national disgrace that the UK provides very little assistance to the elderly who need care, while sending money to China and India, both rich countries.

I despair. ?

I just feel immensely sad that people think this way in our country.

I don't think our government is on a par with lets say The Congo, Zimbabwe, President Zuma's South Africa Zambia, just to name a few, Syria of course, Iran , the list is endless. I agree with PCAgirl.

So do I Alegrias1

I think that the sharp division of opinion we can see on this thread reflects the fundamental divisions in the country.

The reason the Tory government has chosen to make such a drastic cut in foreign aid now is simply because they know that they can get away with it.

Foreign aid of any sort has always been unpopular withe their core supporters, the brexit brigade, who have become more and more like Trump's "base" of xenophobes.