British aid money was used by an African dictator to buy a £30million jet,

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....ator-buy-30m-jet.html

Instead of the heart wrenching pictures from Africa, that show starving children, and women walking miles every day to get water etc, perhaps they should also show us what appeal money and overseas aid really buys?

http://i.dailymail.co...000578-48_468x286.jpg

Now doesn't that make you feel better?

[New Judge]

Let’s have a think about this.

There are a large number of people in this country who fell “morally obliged” and/or “proud” to provide funds for overseas aid. There are also a large number who do not feel so disposed. Those who do not wish to contribute have no choice – they are taxed at source.

Each one penny on the basic rate of income tax raises about £2bn in revenue. Overseas Aid (or “International Development” as it is quaintly entitled) consumes about £8bn at the moment. So if that sum was not met from taxes an option would be to reduce income tax by about 4p in the pound.

So how about this for an idea. Reduce the Income Tax take by about half the sum needed for the International Development budget. Two pence in the pound – a saving of about £350 for someone earning a modest £25k pa – a reduction of about £4bn for the Exchequer. Then reduce the overseas aid budget to zero – a net saving of £4bn for the taxpayer.

Then, those who feel so obliged can contribute to an overseas aid charity of their choice from their taxed income (which, remember, has been augmented) and I’m sure many of them won’t mind contributing a bit more than they have seen their income increase, such is their altruism.

Meanwhile, those of us (me included) who do object to pouring our money down the drain can keep our funds to spend on the things we choose. Such as a contribution towards private medical insurance, private education for our children or a private pension to compensate for the sub-standard facilities provide by the State - a State which seems far more concerned with looking after foreigners than it does with looking after UK taxpayers.

Simples!!

[birdie1971]

^^^ A very sensible suggestion which will never happen. Not because it isn't a good idea, but because overseas aid (or as you rightly say, “International Development Aid”) is nothing of the sort.


Foreign aid is not an altruistic gesture to help poor countries get out of poverty – it is a very large brown envelope that our government hopes will ensure good will between nations. This good will can also be described as security related intelligence and business opportunities for UK (and our allies) companies.

India gives away more foreign aid than it receives. This is because, as a huge industrial nation, they too require good will from their neighbours as they have their own security and business concerns. When a country gives away more foreign aid than it receives, that should tell you something about the validity of the 'foreign aid' argument.

[Zeuhl]

I think it's shameful that rags like the Daily Mail print these lies and then gullible idiots repeat them on sites like this.

There is no evidence in the article that it was aid money used to purchase this plane. And there is no reason to believe that if the Ugandan govt hadn't bought it a single Ugandan would have been any better off.

If just one person reads this tripe and is put off from sending even a modest £10 to SCF or Oxfam that is four children denied life saving vaccinations.

I wonder how the hacks at the Daily Mail sleep at night.
And the OP should be thoroughly ashamed of spreading this garbage.
.

[birdie1971]

Zeuhl:

I think you're targeting your indignation at the wrong people.

No one is suggesting that people should stop giving money to charities that aim to provide life-saving services to people in countries less well off than our own. The Daily Mail article is pointing out the absurdity of giving millions of pounds in aid to countries whose governments squander money on unnecessary luxuries when their own people are living in poverty.

What the DM article says, quite correctly, is that Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, purchased an aircraft costing £30 million pounds, whilst his country was the recipient of £57 million from the UK. This money wasn't transported to Uganda in used notes that can be traced to the purchase of said aircraft but had the UK not given Uganda £57 million in aid, Mr Museveni would have had to have found that money from elsewhere.

To confidently state that monies received in UK aid were not used for the purchase of this aeroplane is absurd. It's like claiming that all road tax monies collected from car owning UK citizens goes directly to the upkeep of the highway infrastructure or that all your national insurance contributions go directly to the NHS or your pension. This doesn't happen. Regardless of what the government says you're paying for, your money simply goes in to a big metaphorical pot and is spent according to the whims of the administration in power.

In the case of Uganda, money given in aid was added to the pot. Ergo, some was used to finance the purchase of a shiny new aeroplane for Mr Museveni.

[emmie]

some would rather bash the DM for supposedly printing lies, than address the question of corruption in many of these countries. The money i give, little there is of it, goes as i said to those at home. The last was to Macmillan Cancer Nurses, as they were the ones who helped my partner have a bit of dignity before he passed away, and helped my mother over a financially difficult time. Strange that no one mentions the many in Britain who are falling through the financial net because of ill health. I did buy the Big Issue once, never again, that was because i saw the four collectors who were in our area, in the park, sharing the spoils, high on some super strength brain damage alcohol, their choice, but not mine.

[bazwillrun]

As usual the same old names show the same amazing degree of naiivety.

"it is a very large brown envelope that our government hopes will ensure good will between nations."

exactly and they will keep taking us for the mugs we are and keep taking our money to line their own pockets, band all the time laughing at us behind our backs.

rough quote "Every pound spent on Int Aid is a pound well spent" !!!!! what ?
D Cameron

For Funks Sake you couldnt mnake that up...

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

/// I think it's shameful that rags like the Daily Mail print these lies and then gullible idiots repeat them on sites like this.///

The same rude and offensive rhetoric from a person such as Zeuh, when something that this person would rather not be reported, is entered on AB's news section.

If he was able enough to put up a good argument against, then maybe he would be respected more.

[Khandro]

There have been mind-boggling sums of aid given to 'Africa' since WW2 and the general population is now poorer than it was then.

[mike11111]

Excuse me, but why does every question on here concerning news or politics always end up in an ignorant rant against the Daily Mail? They don't make the news, they merely print it as they see fit, as do the Morning Star, The Guardian and the Daily Mirror, none of which seem to come in for the same sort of flak as the Daily Mail.

[anotheoldgit]

Good point Mike.

[jackthehat]

Essentially because we are subjected, on a daily basis, to the news as presented by The Daily Wail.
We are then invited to respond to those facts as presented, rather than on the facts of the issue.

[Mick-Talbot]

And despite giving away these mind-boggling sums of aid to 'Africa' since WW2 the general population of the UK is now richer than it was then.

How odd is that ?

[emmie]

i would like to add, do all the contributors on here read a paper, which ones, and do you believe everything you read in them, surely the answer must be no. Perhaps you read others papers, see news reports on TV, and listen to the radio, and then make a judgement on that. If i saw a man lying in the street, would i assume he was drunk, no, he could be ill or even dead, so i don't make assumptions until i know the facts.

[Khandro]

And despite giving away these mind-boggling sums of aid to 'Africa' since WW2 the general population of the UK is now richer than it was then.

Yes and so are many African dictators and their cohorts, but not the needy.