International aid should be abolished

Edward McLaughlin

Well said Sam.

How the hell did you get through the interview here?

strapworld

Well written Mr Bowman!

It was a crass mistake. Political correctness gone mad. Charity begins at home!

It is the increase of the EU budget. The way Cameron talks tough but his actions are weak.

The Country will not forgive when they actually discover what the coalition have done. Pain at home more Mercedes abroad!

oldtimer

Here, here!

Richard Calhoun

I am completely confused as to why this government should be increasing international aid when they should be reducing it.
What they should be doing is reducing tariffs to third world countries so that they are able to export their agricultural products.

Grumpy Optimist

I was a young development economist in Swaziland in the early 1970s and saw at first hand how the Swazi Govt saw aid - as a means of buttressing its political position. I also saw rich, superior World bank professionals, staying in the best hotels lauding over us as we ran to do their bidding to receive their aid. I then returned to the LSE to read for a masters degree and heard Prof Bauer demolish the case for aid comprehensively. It exists to support corrupt regimes, to ease liberal consciences and provide nice livelihoods for the aid lobby and industry.

Name me a poor country that has moved out of poverty because of aid. I doubt that one exists.

Vettekulla

Absolutely right Bowman. Not only that but DFID is possible the most chaotic and inefficient of all government departments. Cameron argues that the poor should not pay for the handouts to the well off domestically. Why is not that also true internationally? Wasn't it Kennedy who said that aid is a transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries?

DavidDP

Much of the criticism is where the aid goes, which can easily be solved without getting rid of it.

Aid is a useful soft power tool which can reduce the need for costlier hard power methods, so can actually save money in the long run. The government has made a firmer link between aid and foreign policy which is to be welcomed.

Walsingham's Ghost

But then again, Cameron has to pay a price to keep the Liberal Democrats on side. And we haven't even started the debate on increased tuition fees yet...

Edward Sutherland

Why we give any money to corrupt,brutal governments like Sudan and Zimbabwe is utterly mystifying. Can DfID explain why this is necessary when there are reputable secular and religious charities through whom the money can be channelled? Although I give money to charities working in the third world, I refuse to sign their petitions, because while they're always banging on about our government needing to do more, they always seem to soft-pedal when it comes to third world government corruption.

JohnBUK

DavidDP "Aid is a useful soft power tool which can reduce the need for costlier hard power methods, so can actually save money in the long run. The government has made a firmer link between aid and foreign policy which is to be welcomed."
You may, or may not, be right but it would be nice to see some form of objective measurement of the "benefits to the UK" before we shell out this largesse.

Scary Biscuits

The biggest argument against the DfID is that if socialism doesn't work in Liverpool why should we expect it to work in Pakistan? If it doesn't encourage Liverpudlians to do something useful with their lives why will it suddenly start persuading Muslims not to join the Taliban? Pakistan is already in receipt of billions of international aid. Why will increasing it make the place any less of a basket case?

Basically this is £11 billion per annum just to make Dave and George not look like an evil Tories. Is that the world's most expensive window dressing? The irony is that wasting other people's money in this way or putting our security at risk to pay for the self-indulgence really is evil.

TrevorsDen

Slight flaw in the argument - you quote countries we gave aid to in 2008.

The present government has announced that aid will be used differently. Its intended as an adjunct to foreign policy and I hope trade.
Its subsidiary purpose is to promote British interest which in turn should promote British jobs, well at least the jobs of Poles living in Britain.

GDT

Agree totally. Charity starts at home.
However, I believe detox of the Conservative brand is what lies behind this strategy.

Barry Bilge

"And aid money does not simply correlate with bad governance, it causes it. When governments are not reliant on their own citizens for revenue, they have no need to be accountable to them either."

That applies equally to the EU!

DavidDP,

'soft power', 'hard power', what power? Britain has no imperial designs anymore our foreign policy is written in Brussels. This money doled out by the bucket load is a wrong headed anachronism that condemns impoverished foreigners to a welfare trap as real as the one caused by our native welfare state and crowds out genuine charity doing good with money freely donated by the public for specific causes.

Why are taxpayers paying to soothe the consciences and lubricate the careers of politicians, technocrats and the well to do wanting something good on their CV? There are no long term benefits for the needy in far flung places and no benefits for British taxpayers.

Dimoto

The economic implications for the UK of the carbon eradication agenda, make the aid debate pale into insignificence.

wrinkled weasel

GDT may just have gotten to the real reason why overseas aid has been increased.

But Sam Bowman's argument remains sound. The stories of fleets of Mercedes Benz limos bought on money that came from British Tax Payers are not mythic, they are true. The said limos were ordered to be sold, nobody in the certain African country could, be seen to buy them and the rest could not afford them, and now they are rotting in a scrap yard.

We really are dealing with crooks and savages, who think refined petroleum can be conjured from rocks by magic and that HIV can be prevented by eating carrots and are destroying the fat of their own land.

Until such countries demonstrate some kind of responsible form of government, I cannot for the life of me understand why the working classes of Britain should prolong their natural evolution.

Loki

Why are we surprised? Aircraft carriers with no planes; people earning £43000 a year with no child benefit, and those with £84000 joint income keeping it; a 50p tax rate that raises little or no revenue; policies that leave the poorest paying nearly the highest in % terms for the savings in public expenditure. The world is clearly nuts.

lescam

Although the very idea of handing out OUR money like this infuriates me, it would at least be a bit less annoying if the aid went to responsible charities like Oxfam, Save the Children, Medicines sans Frontieres etc. At least, after paying salaries, the aid would then go where it is needed. As it is, giving to corrupt governments is about as useful as giving snow to the Inuit. And it's no use blaming the LibDems; the Tories announced they were ringfencing foreign aid long before the election. Idiots.

Dubs.

As sick and sad as it is that we are throwing taxpayers money at scumbags like Mugabe and the Burmese generals what really sticks in the craw is that we are subsidising Singapore. And screw the "charities" most of them are New Labour's useful idiot agencies. If idle lefties want to throw money at Oxfam etc. let them throw their own (i.e. our, but please god not for much longer) money at them.

Verity

Wrinkled Weasel 11:31 p.m. Excellent, sensible, insightful post.

maddy1

Yes, but the in the politically correct, ethereal world of Londonistan you need to show your street cred. To be fair, Clegg made this a key election priority, after doing up his own house. If I could take a camera into Clegg's lifestyle and do the same with rich Africans this issue would be a non issue with British electorate. If the collective consciousness of our working class could look into that of relativley poor African country like Swaziland and compare it to parts of the UK. there also would be no issue. The media precludes this and presents the image it wants us to have. Malaria is not a problem and could be minimised for pennies with basic organisational ability. Rich African leaders do not care about their poor and why should they if they get free money from the West? Why should the rich of this country dictate we all be good "Samabritons" if we like or not, this cut cross the idea of the original parable.

maddy1

@lescom
Oxfam, Save the Children, Medicines sans Frontieres etc. ...

these are some of the worse offenders and should not recieve any largesse, Mr. Oxfam and other bearded, sandal wearing chappies are partly responsible for the death of millions? in Zimbabwe.

Verity

Walsingham's Ghost: "But then again, Cameron has to pay a price to keep the Liberal Democrats on side."

No Cameron, who did not win the election, is not paying a price at all. The mugs of Britain are paying the price to have this stupid, greedy man as PM.

TomTom

Politicians' Slush Fund to make Neo-Imperialism feasible. Britain Aid to India goes to the Indian Government directly - no doubt funding lifestyle improvements. We give aid to China from funds we borrow from China. Then we give aid to France, Portugal, Greece, Italy and Ireland through our EU budget.

The British are still centre of an Illusory Global Empire and imagine a world looking to Britain as some sort of paragon to be admired. If you cannot SELL goods BUY customers !

normanc

The Overseas Aid budget isn't about aid, or helping people in poverty, it's about showing that Dave and his mates are progressive and not nasty.

An expensive PR campaign, to be sure, but they must feel it's worth it to distance themselves from nasty right wingers.

Roy

While nine out of ten would agree Sam Bowman, it spells out the mystery of the thinking in high places. When the country needs the cash like never before, they can dish it out to the undeserving mish-mash of the world.
People . . . you need to tell your leader.

strapworld

TrevorsDen. Just what is our foreign policy?

We have not faced up to the bill we will pay for Afghanistan when we pull out!

Not counting the courageous dead from our armed services, nor the maimed brave lads and lasses, No I fear we will promise billions in aid- which will go directly to the Taliban in that God forsaken country.

Am I the only one who thinks Hague has lost the plot? Watching him last evening dealing with the Sky News Publicity Broadcast in aid of the Taliban and the assertion by one of the 'taliban' that their largest bankers come from this Country etc. I just got the impression Hague was just not interested.

I asked TrevorsDen the question at the start because I am damned if I can see any link with the defence cuts and any foreign policy. Surely a Defence review should take into account what our leaders believe will be the foreign policy. Not just fear from computer hackers and international terrorism.

Goodness me, over twenty five years ago I attended a number of conferences, in a past life, where the number one threat to this country was international terrorism, yet they allowed hundreds of thousands of possible enemies to take 'refuge' and 'citizenship' here. So much for warning our 'leaders' They neither listen nor action the recommendations!

What did the Gods say about madness?

Liz Brown

I agree.
We should also abolish our contribution to the EU. Time to get out

Tarka the Rotter

Good grief - the voice of sanity! Well said Sam... and yes, how DID you get through the interview at Adam Smith????

Terence Hale

Hi,
International aid should be abolished.

Rough justice it may seem, but often the only way to the needy is
though the greedy. Such aid should not be questioned in times
of economic hardship. Politics, as form of prostitution tries to
keep poor lands within a democratic structure as a humanitarian goal.

Regards Dr. Terence Hale

Dave B

I was under the impression that the DFID had been re-orientated to act in support of the MoD, rather than giving cash to foreign governments.

Edward McLaughlin

normanc

The 'progressive' that we are being sold, is very nasty indeed.

GDT

My preference would be...
Have a voluntary tax contribution to DfID. If you like it contribute, if not don't. I bet they wouldn't raise £9BN.

Verity

Richard Calhoun ... "What they should be doing is reducing tariffs to third world countries so that they are able to export their agricultural products."

I've been saying this for years, and that they don't brilliantly lights the truth about the EU. It's a nasty, fascist cartel run for the Nomenklatura. Just like the Soviet Union.

There are plenty of African producers who are denied the right to send their cheap produce to the EU in the name of protecting French farmers, among others.

Obviously, far better to open our markets to them and let them make their own way in the world through their own trading canny and energy than make them beggars at the EU table.

Thinking about the EU is the best emetic after a heavy night out.

lescam

"Am I the only one who thinks Hague has lost the plot?"

He is probably more interested in making money from after-dinner speaking and writing his next historical tome.

A very over-rated man, admittedly a good speaker and not much good for anything else.

David Lindsay

With aid to China apparently cancelled (although look out for the small print) without any reduction in the overall aid budget, and with aid to India funding that economic superpower's space programme, how about poling those monies and dividing them in half, fifty per cent to be further divided per capita among the 324 local authority areas in England, the other fifty per cent to be further divided per capita among the British Overseas Territories?

Bob Humphries

What selfish trite. 99.44% of GDP is spent on ourselves, and will be until 2013, when it drops to a shocking 99.30%. That's `charity begins at home' written in sky high letters. Get a grip, you insular nutbags.

Abby Mason

"Over 95 percent of the money that the government gives in aid is goes to the governments of developing countries"

This is un-true, Sam get your facts straight - this article is wrong factually and morally - please take it down.

AB

Sam, I'm afraid you can't even look up the right tables. You've been looking up the *humanitarian aid* tables ie food and other disaster relief, which is 1. a small proportion of the total (most is long-term development aid) and 2. not delivered through the recipient country's government. http://data.gov.uk/dataset/statistics-international-development

I could go into how the rest of what you cite is generally nonsense, but I think this elementary howler is enough to convince any right-thinking person that you are gigantically out of your depth.

Fidge

This is totally unbelievable! Such a kick in the teeth for all taxpayers in the UK that this budget is actually increasing more than 30%, they havent even tried to be a bit more suttle and freeze the DfID budget which in itself would be totally unacceptable! If the country has to make make such drastic cuts which will affect the majority of UK taxpayers noticably, then the DfID budget should be nothing short of £0.00

Zimzamzim

A voice of reason at last!

Paul Carter

Excellent. Why give aid to India so they can use saved cash to put jets on their aircraft carriers when we can't even afford to do so ourselves.

We also have given aid to Singapore in recent times - crazy