Public opinion on international aid isn't where Cameron thinks it is

Andrew Fletcher

Mitchell doesn't really "believe" in the increase (but he is an ambitious minister so will go along with it) and Cameron was told to sign up to it by his backroom boys. (as you say it was part of the detoxification)
What a farce!!

Cjamesk

Either way he wont listen his mind is made up. Much like the weekly bin fiasco that the majority of the public support but yet again a mandarin knows best every other week it is then.

What grates with the public imo is the fact are brave men and women in the forces are having budgets slashed left right and centre yet we're willing to throw good money after bad to these countries.

When will we have a government that'll govern for the people and not vested lobbying groups and unelected bureaucrats, for it wont be in our life time for sure.

michael

Euro-aid should come out of this budget.

If only because Brown has allowed/cajoled UK plc to act as GUARANTORS for 400 BILLION of sovereign Euro debt

Matthew J

Perhaps Cameron just thinks it's the right thing to do? He might just be standing by a principle in the face of public opinion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

RCE

Public opinion on a lot of things isn't where Cameron thinks it is.

Perry

The H2B is right to look as though he has his toe stuck in a drain hole.

That's how we feel about the absurd waste of OUR money by people in public office!

Cogito Ergosum

If U-turns are a sign of strength, let us see some strength on foreign aid, and even more on all that green nonsense.

Dave B

David Brooks' column this week points out that aid has been a failure, even in Afghanistan.

"A conference of experts brought together last year in Wilton Park in Britain concluded that there is a “surprisingly weak evidence base for the effectiveness of aid in promoting stabilization and security objectives” in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the influx of aid has, in many cases, created dependency, fed corruption, contributed to insecurity and undermined the host government’s capacity to oversee sustainable programs."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21brooks.html

Dave B

"Dispelling that view is vital if the policy is to do what Cameron inteneded it to: improve his party's electoral fortunes."

I'd always thought that the sole purpose of this policy was to prevent the BBC calling Tories racist.

normanc

Not that my £20 / month will make or break them but I cancelled my Red Cross direct debit last week - if nanny thinks she is in the best position to dictate how much aid each citizen should give and where it should be spent then who am I to argue?

I'll still support small local charities with my time / money as I doubt somehow Dave's largesse will spread to the local skateboarding / whatever club.

Baron

what Cogito Ergosum says, the lot of it.

and another thing: the boy doing it because of 'a principle'? Hmm, it's our fugging money, he should stuff 'a principle'.

Costcutter1

Tranfer overseas aid budget to MoD to finance "aid" to Afganistan and Lybia.

Hexhamgeezer

Easy to be principled with other people's money and when you know your Lib & Lab friends won't oppose it.

Liz Brown

I am definitely in the No camp - I cannot see how, by giving aid to eg Pakistan, educes terrorism - the money has been spent by them on purchasing submariens from Russia - we could have given that money to Russia direct. I now no longer donate, voluntarily, to any Charity as they are now political pressure groups. Sadly, I cannot do anything about my involuntary donations, through taxation

schwerpunkt

He wouldn't know a principle if it poked him in the eye with a stick. He will turn on this sooner or later but only when the "pollsters" get it in to his thick head how politically toxic it is, odious son of Heath that he is.

In2minds

With a joke the best bit, the punch line comes at the end. It's the same with this post. Talking of Cameron and his aid policy, Jonathan Jones says it is to -

"improve his party's electoral fortunes".

That made me laugh!

BenM

Given the polls broadly in favour of it, public opinion on International Aid doesn't appear to be where the Spectator and other rightwing outlets thinks it is either!

Robert Eve

Too right - the aid budget is a bleeding heart liberal stupidity.

Dean

Ever since WW2 America has given the rest of the world billions, through the Marshall plan, USAID etc. As a result they are loved everywhere. Er, no, they're not.

People don't love you for giving charity, and they don't become terrorists because of poverty, either.

Did Osama bin Laden choose the path of jihad because of the poverty of his childhood? Did the two doctors drive the incendiary Jeep into Edinburgh Airport because they were poor? You can't buy off people who hate you by throwing money at them.

Tom Pride

“It was a key part of the wristbands and huskies "detoxification" of the ‘nasty party’.”

Using Aid to reverse the demonization of Conservatives and their party was never and is never going to work. And, why should giving other peoples’ money away even deserve to work?

The Left-wing commentariat detailed on http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2011/06/the-crowd-pleasing-left.html have not changed their loathing of Tories and while they have the willing conduit of the BBC and broadcasting media at their disposal to spew their poison, the quantum of Aid will be irrelevant.

Anyway it’s all based on a false premise – that Conservatives are “nasty”. Dealing with how that perception has been spread is the key. Anyone calling Labour “nasty” for cutting the 10pence tax rate or for Damien McBride / Balls plotting?

Want a fair hearing for Conservatives? Start with an Augean clear out of the BBC stables. First step – force all senior management out of London to Salford. Then start talking about making the Licence fee voluntary. (No more young women being sent to prison [for not paying the consequential fines] so management can have six figure salaries.)

On a personal level – I read a comment the other day that to deal with aggressive Chuggers, just say “I’m a Conservative”. Curious, I gave it a go. Got a wicked scowl, a look of disdain and was immediately left alone.

Ain’t going to work Cameron.

TGF UKIP

'People are not swayed by the "it's in our own interests" arguments' so I wonder what the poll figures would be if they were aware that aid in the furtherance of British interests was made specifically illegal by the Labour government with predictably no move being made by its Blue Labour successor to change that premise.

Credit where credit is due though, the diversion of £2.9bn from the Armed Forces to African dictators and the Indian nuclear weapons programme was a vital building block in the overall plan of Dave's Director of Strategy for a Labour Victory -pisses off independent voters and alienates natural Tories so so treble fizzy mineral waters all round.

Charlie

An honest audit needs to be undertaken of all aid and work undertaken by chaities since 1945. There needs to a clear understanding of which activties actually benefit the poorest in the World. Too much aid either finances project which are not sustainable by local communities because the projects are not suitable: too much is lost in corruption and through remuneration paid to NGO employees. I would suggest aid needs to be concentrated in a few areas: water supply, sewage, dry agriculture ( minimising water use) developing crops which can survive on low fertile soils( reduce the use of costly fertiliser and pesticides) with low rainfall; basic health education( training large numbers of health visitors/nurses /midwives may provide better use of resources than training doctors and constructing hospitals), vaccination, basic education and construction of low tech schools and supply of such equipment of pesticide coated malaria nets.

All aid projects should be run by the local people and therefore designed to be supported by the local technology and skills available. If the equipment cannot be repaired and/or bought in the nearest town or village, it should probably not be bought.NGOs should not spend money by paying westerners to write reports or lobby on their behalf.

Jim Quinn

As someone who is concerned about the welfare of others and a supporter of the Catholic aid charity CAFOD, I was pleased to see from the YouGov@Cambridge poll that 41 per cent of the public remain favourable towards international aid as opposed to 38 per cent recorded as unfavourable. I believe that core support for the principle of helping others in the poorest countries is not only morally right but fundamental to who we are as a country, even if there are clearly sharply-divided views about how much of a priority it should be.

For my part, I believe passionately that the Government must fulfil its commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on overseas aid. I was recently made redundant but I know there are millions of people in the world much worse off than me. I may have lost my job but I don’t have to try and live on just a dollar a day. And as long as there are people for whom overseas aid is the difference between life or death, food or hunger, education or illiteracy, vaccination or disease, there is no question for me that it should continue to be one of this government’s top priorities.

I was sad to read in the research that many people said they would be less inclined to give to charity if they knew the government was giving more in aid. These people seem to be making a calculation that if the government is doing more, their help is not needed – so when they see pictures of poverty and disaster overseas, they don’t have to worry because someone else is taking care of it. This is a very narrow view. Charity aid does work, often reaching people that government aid can’t. The truth is they are both needed.

I do what I can to support CAFOD because I want to help someone in need – wherever they are. One of the reasons I support CAFOD is because they believe that acts of charity transform our own lives, not just the people we’re helping. It is an act of faith – in more ways than one. Even for those with no religion, it’s about the basic human instinct that if we know someone else is suffering, whether here or overseas, we suffer too, and we want to help.

And it helps to know that those little acts of charity do make a difference. The survey showed that when people get away from the abstract debates and the big numbers and think about the individual projects supported by aid or the efforts to vaccinate individual children, the numbers favourable to aid are much higher. Again, one of the reasons I support CAFOD is because I can see the results of their efforts in the lives saved or communities transformed.

So I hope the Government will not only stick by its commitments on aid, but also have the courage to make the moral case for why aid is important. I’ve heard politicians argue recently that aid is about tackling terrorism or illegal immigration or Britain having more influence in the world, trying to persuade people it’s in Britain’s self-interest to raise the aid budget. Those arguments may be correct, but the fundamental reason we should keep to our commitments on aid is that it’s a demonstration of what we stand for as a country, as a society, and as individuals: it makes me proud to be British.

A fortnight ago, I was one of more than 1,200 voters at the Tea Time for Change event in Westminster, where we sat down with our MPs and made the case to them about how Britain could help the poorest countries, not just through increased aid but through tougher rules on the multinational companies exploiting the natural resources in those countries. I was pleased to sit down with my local MP for Redditch, Conservative Karen Lumley. She told me she fully supported the 0.7% commitment and would be writing to George Osborne to pass on the other points I made.

According to the survey, taking that stance will not gain Karen any votes and indeed it could cost her support in some quarters. But in an era when trust and faith in politicians has fallen so low, how rare and refreshing it is to see MPs of all parties – and the Government as a whole – supporting and making the case for increased aid not because it will gain them votes and popularity, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

lescam

"it keeps us safe"

Is this a protection racket, or what? Paying out other people's hard-earned money to foreign hellholes to "keep us safe".

Cameron and his cronies are total idiots if they think wasting money on foreign aid or worse yet, raising the amount, is going to win them any votes. It will however, alienate plenty of voters who would otherwise vote Tory.

Hexhamgeezer

dave is very very lucky that the bulk of the MSM runs with 'Tory Cuts' rather than 'We cut at home to pay for Pakistani and African Mercedes'

Scary Biscuits

Whereas Blair picked arguments with the Old Guard on issues that were popular with the voters, Cameron picks arguments with voters than are popular with the Old Guard. What a jerk.

El Sid

If DfiD wanted to be a bit more muscular, they could have bought RFA Largs Bay as a disaster relief ship. (see eg http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/12/the-future-of-the-royal-navy-09-%E2%80%93-equipping-the-humanitarian-support-group/ )

DfiD could relieve the RN of sending a ship to the West Indies every hurricane season, or follow the example of the US and China in operating a hospital ship that gives free healthcare to countries we want to influence.

Archie

I don't know to whom these "pollsters" spoke, but everyone I know to a man (and woman) is violently opposed to aid of ANY kind at this time of economic uncertainty, and aid to our enemies, including those in our midst, is ludicrous. A guaranteed vote loser, aalong with all the "green" frippery!

Archie

Jim Quinn. YOU might have bags of dosh to chuck around; most of us don't! And where is the proof that it is doing any good? Look at Africa. Billions upon billions in aid since the fifties and it's still a basket case!

The Laughing Cavalier

The BBC World Service “improves diplomatic relations” for a tiny fraction of the amount that DFID costs us.

Mr L

It would be better not to spend this money at all, but if it is to be spent it would be much better used to support people in this country who need help. Is Mr Cameron and those who think like him really saying that corrupt foreign governments are more deserving than our own people?

Verity

As others have noted, an Approve button would be a great addition to the liveliness of this blog, because it would keep it moving (re scoring) even when the chaps in London weren't posting or moderating.

HFC

Jim Quinn. Suggest to your Catholic paymasters and spiritual leaders that CAFOD use the huge assets of of your religion to teach and promote birth control - yes, condoms - and thus reduce the teeming hordes of 'deserving' poor and their unwanted children never-endingly produced in catholic dominated and other third world countries.

Barry

How much money did we give in aid to our Caribbean "friends" for them to stab us in the back by supporting Argebtina in their claims on the Falklands?

ButcombeMan

Having tramped round a lot of sub Saharan Africa, places we and others have given aid to for years (with hardly any discernible difference), I am sceptical about the value of a lot of aid. I am disappointed Cameron has not strictly examined value for money.

I think he has made a mistake. The people are not broadly with him. They know about corruption.

Throwing money at corrupt governments who are plundering their countries is not where I want my taxes to go.

I like bottom-up aid (especially that given to women) examples are the cow, the well and the schoolroom. I like medical aid which is hard for corrupt governments to plunder. I do not like, (but accept we have to do some of it), improving governance. I do not like it because it often fails and in my experience is duplicated & triplicated by other countries (and still fails). If that is to be done it should be conditional, more tightly controlled and terms dictated.

Otherwise, I think a lot goes to waste.

We might be better off spending some of it, mostly in the UK, on stockpiling Disaster Aid & equipment (including aircraft and some JCBs) with an absolute commintment to be first on the scene, anywhere in the world, with volunteers and reserve forces.

Cynic

"Unfortunately for Cameron, he seems to have misjudged public sentiment on this issue" On this issue (International aid) as on so many others (immigration, an EU referendum, waste, green taxes, non-jobs etc). What is really sickening is that it isn't just unfortunate for Cameron, it's unfortunate for the whole country.

Perry

Public opinion on international aid isn't where Cameron thinks it is

No, the H2B doesn’t think anything – rather he is fed what his minders want him to regurgitate.

Meanwhile, … well what’s money, - apart from not theirs?

JohnBUK

Jim Quinn, award yourself a BIG Caring Medal and wear it with pride along with all the other bleeding hearts who "care" with other people's money.

AliC

Trade not aid. Aid for disasters, not for crap governments who spend their poor's money on private jets and shopping trips for their wive(s).

Exception: help women in poor countries with family planning. That would halt lots of problems much more quickly, giving women more power to control their lives.

sf

What does H2B stand for?

Professor Bongo

Charity begins at home.

This money would be far better spent improving the lot of oppressed asylum seekers in this country and increasing financial assistance to the 'unemployed and on benefits' community (of which Professor Bongo is currently a member.)

But that is another story...

Tom Pride

Heir to Blair

radaress

We cannot afford anymore overseas aid & we are not prepared to pay for anymore. £479 of my tax goes to this without my permission as it is, I have no intentions of giving anymore. Mother nature is telling us there are too many people on this earth now.