ChatterBank1 min ago
A Flood Victim's Reply To The Call For Foreign Aid To Be Used For People Like Himself
33 Answers
Interesting opinion and food for thought:
I live in Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire, one of the worst affected areas hit by the floods. It's ***, everything has gotten really wet.
However... I’m alive. I’m safe. My family are safe. We don’t live in fear. I’m free. There aren’t bullets flying about. There aren’t bombs going off. I’m not being forced to flee my home and I’m not being shunned by the richest countries in the world or criticised by its residents.
All you morons vomiting your xenophobia on here about how money should only be spent ‘on our own’ need to look at yourselves a very important question… am I a decent and honourable human being?
Because home isn't just the UK, home is everywhere on this planet.
Rather than condemn a kind gesture by a man who's entitled to do what he wants with his own money, why don't you DEMAND that your government donate the costs of a single British missile to the flood victims??
Get a grip, grow up and start looking outwards rather than inwards, it's easy if you try.
It can be found in The Independant.
I live in Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire, one of the worst affected areas hit by the floods. It's ***, everything has gotten really wet.
However... I’m alive. I’m safe. My family are safe. We don’t live in fear. I’m free. There aren’t bullets flying about. There aren’t bombs going off. I’m not being forced to flee my home and I’m not being shunned by the richest countries in the world or criticised by its residents.
All you morons vomiting your xenophobia on here about how money should only be spent ‘on our own’ need to look at yourselves a very important question… am I a decent and honourable human being?
Because home isn't just the UK, home is everywhere on this planet.
Rather than condemn a kind gesture by a man who's entitled to do what he wants with his own money, why don't you DEMAND that your government donate the costs of a single British missile to the flood victims??
Get a grip, grow up and start looking outwards rather than inwards, it's easy if you try.
It can be found in The Independant.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zacs-Master. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Because home isn't just the UK, home is everywhere on this planet.”
A noble sentiment. And one with which I will entirely agree when people from everywhere on this planet contribute towards its and their wellbeing. But they don’t and until they do we are stuck with individual nations appropriating funds from taxpayers and spending it on their behalf.
Much of the UK’s Overseas Aid (sorry, “development”) budget is wasted. Taxpayers may just as well stand in the rain and tear up £50 notes. It’s no use saying “Ah but that’s a different argument”. It’s not. It is precisely the argument that should be voiced. Money (which has been borrowed) is being lavished on projects which see no tangible benefit for anyone, let alone anyone in the UK. Meantime people are being forced from their homes courtesy of the elements and as much money as possible should be spent to help prevent recurrences and repair the damage.
To borrow money to give to other people (especially when much of it is wasted) is irresponsible and to deny the people who pay to service the loan funds for urgent matters that effect them is simply offensive. When the UK has no public borrowing, when income tax and national insurance are both reduced considerably from the current levels and when all the cash for infrastructure and other necessities for the UK has been provided then Overseas Aid might be ripe for reconsideration. Until then the ridiculous 0.7% of GDP spent on it should be reduced to nil. This is not charity we are talking about here. This is money which people have had taken from them in the expectation that it will be spent on things that they need.
“The UK and other OECD countries aim to give 0.7% of its gross national income to foreign aid. Less than 1%”
Fine. If I earned £30k a year but had to borrow another £1,000 annually to get by, would my bank manager view my overdraft facilities favourably if he was to learn that I gave £300 of that Grand to somebody else for no other reason than to make me feel good? Perhaps not
“Arguing that there are people making themselves rich with the aid money is no reason that we should not try to help.”
Yes it is. It has been well known for years that huge amounts of Foreign Aid cash ends up in the wrong places. The argument that this is no reason to stop providing it is exhausted.
“I can't begin to imagine what the people in the flooded areas are going through. Hopefully most will be fully insured.”
Hopefully I can give you some idea. Just watching the news. Some premises in northern England and Scotland have been flooded out for the third time in as many years and are now almost uninsurable. Those who do manage to secure cover have such large excesses that the cost to them in the event of disaster is enormous. They are the people who should be the beneficiaries the UK government’s largesse. It should not be spent as described here:
http://
A noble sentiment. And one with which I will entirely agree when people from everywhere on this planet contribute towards its and their wellbeing. But they don’t and until they do we are stuck with individual nations appropriating funds from taxpayers and spending it on their behalf.
Much of the UK’s Overseas Aid (sorry, “development”) budget is wasted. Taxpayers may just as well stand in the rain and tear up £50 notes. It’s no use saying “Ah but that’s a different argument”. It’s not. It is precisely the argument that should be voiced. Money (which has been borrowed) is being lavished on projects which see no tangible benefit for anyone, let alone anyone in the UK. Meantime people are being forced from their homes courtesy of the elements and as much money as possible should be spent to help prevent recurrences and repair the damage.
To borrow money to give to other people (especially when much of it is wasted) is irresponsible and to deny the people who pay to service the loan funds for urgent matters that effect them is simply offensive. When the UK has no public borrowing, when income tax and national insurance are both reduced considerably from the current levels and when all the cash for infrastructure and other necessities for the UK has been provided then Overseas Aid might be ripe for reconsideration. Until then the ridiculous 0.7% of GDP spent on it should be reduced to nil. This is not charity we are talking about here. This is money which people have had taken from them in the expectation that it will be spent on things that they need.
“The UK and other OECD countries aim to give 0.7% of its gross national income to foreign aid. Less than 1%”
Fine. If I earned £30k a year but had to borrow another £1,000 annually to get by, would my bank manager view my overdraft facilities favourably if he was to learn that I gave £300 of that Grand to somebody else for no other reason than to make me feel good? Perhaps not
“Arguing that there are people making themselves rich with the aid money is no reason that we should not try to help.”
Yes it is. It has been well known for years that huge amounts of Foreign Aid cash ends up in the wrong places. The argument that this is no reason to stop providing it is exhausted.
“I can't begin to imagine what the people in the flooded areas are going through. Hopefully most will be fully insured.”
Hopefully I can give you some idea. Just watching the news. Some premises in northern England and Scotland have been flooded out for the third time in as many years and are now almost uninsurable. Those who do manage to secure cover have such large excesses that the cost to them in the event of disaster is enormous. They are the people who should be the beneficiaries the UK government’s largesse. It should not be spent as described here:
http://
-- answer removed --
It could be worse......you could live in a caravan.....oh, apologies, I mean a Park Home.
http://
http://
Most government spending is wasted. As an example, many of the flood defences that did exist turn out to have been worse than useless. This argument for foreign aid is just a red herring based on political considerations rather than any practical considerations.
Want to spend more on better flood defences? Perhaps you could have found the money from various stupid IT projects down the years -- the biggest (a Labour project) costing on the order of £12 billion apparently. Which, to put into perspective, ie fully five times the UK's flood defence budget over a six-year period.
For all that foreign aid is not always effective, some of it certainly is -- in response, say, to other flooding emergencies, when not just property but lives are lost. More effort should go into targeting the aid better. Cutting it off entirely shouldn't even be considered as an option.
Want to spend more on better flood defences? Perhaps you could have found the money from various stupid IT projects down the years -- the biggest (a Labour project) costing on the order of £12 billion apparently. Which, to put into perspective, ie fully five times the UK's flood defence budget over a six-year period.
For all that foreign aid is not always effective, some of it certainly is -- in response, say, to other flooding emergencies, when not just property but lives are lost. More effort should go into targeting the aid better. Cutting it off entirely shouldn't even be considered as an option.
Yes the scheme you mention has been delayed until at least next April, Peter (thus denying affordable cover to all the people flooded out in recent weeks) and if it is ever introduced the costs of claims from people in high risk areas will not be borne by the government (i.e. the taxpayer) but by increased premiums paid by all householders. Fair enough, that is the principle of insurance (the misfortunes of the unfortunate few are financed by the contributions of the fortunate many). But "the government" will make very little contribution.
You make a good argument for the abolition of government squandering, Jim. First among the abolitions should be money squandered overseas.
You make a good argument for the abolition of government squandering, Jim. First among the abolitions should be money squandered overseas.
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
Day Trippers Will Have To Pay €5 To...
News5 mins ago
Body & Soul5 mins ago
Who Inherits If Children Are Adopted ?
Law10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.