This debate is now closed.
Do we have aid policy right?
The UK is to spend £1bn a year in overseas aid on countries that have recently emerged from conflict. The money will target security and job creation rather than traditional areas such as health and education. Do you welcome the change in priorities?.
The aim is to try to prevent conflicts in 20 fragile states where about one third of the poorest people in the world live. The change in emphasis is based on what are seen as success stories in Sierra Leone and Nepal which are both coming out of long and bitter conflicts.
The Department for International Development (DFID) will also get a new look – it will now use the name UK Aid to try to raise the profile of British government spending on international development. Do you agree with the change in priorities? Will the rebranding raise the public’s awareness of UK aid? Should the overseas aid budget be trimmed?
Read the main story
Send us your story ideas
Published:
Monday, 6 July, 2009, 11:13 GMT
12:13 UK
All comments as they come in
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 16:31 GMT
17:31 UK
"I am a little bit annoyed by the "charity begins at home" armchair-Nazi comments." Will de Beest, Spain
One argues that foreign aid is money wasted (because it doesn't reach the people for whom it is intended and/or doesn't achieve the results intended); one observes that the UK is in a recession and serious debt; one concludes that UK tax revenues would be better spent in the UK (e.g. paying off the debt, or on UK schools and/or hospitals). Explain how this makes one a National Socialist.
[dudeiancan]
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 16:28 GMT
17:28 UK
The priorities should change completely! Nevermind overseas aid when we cannot afford to look after our OWN sick, elderly, homeless, education system, defence etc., etc.. Stop spending on despotic countries where our money is used for Mercedes, BMW's and generally lining the pockets of the ruling elite. Stop using our under equipped forces in areas where they are generally not welcome. Do this and we will have no problem in looking after our own - THEN if there is anything left.............
Ray Evans, Sheringham
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 16:21 GMT
17:21 UK
Yes, i welcome the change in priorities because first thing is to make people of contries who recently emerged from internal conflicts is SECURITY and then EMPLOYMENT to make people busy and to make sure their families' needs of food,medical treatment and education.Rebanding the name of this aid definatily make awareness in those countries tha name of UK. LONDON remained world capital in the past..SO UK should not trimm this aid to the countries mentioned above.
JAGJIT SINGH MUKANDPURI, EDISON USA
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 16:18 GMT
17:18 UK
I agree to this policy, besides if you don't have a job? How can you eat, how can you do anything else? I believe that in every household income is priority.
Steffanie Lyn Smetham, London
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 16:16 GMT
17:16 UK
Can someone please remind me why exactly the people 'at home' are more deserving of aid than those living in foreign countries?
I'm playing devil's advocate, of course, but it strikes me that nationalism in any form is laughably short-sighted and contrived. If we are a truly ethical society, funding should be targetted at those most in need - be they here in Britain or abroad.
However, it is sadly true that any aid must be carefully monitored to ensure it gets to the right people.
Ms Ann Thrope, Sheffield
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 16:08 GMT
17:08 UK
Iraq has just emerged from conflict. Still ongoing here and there. Yet isn't this a country where billions (£$) of money in oil comes from? And in the UK petrol prices have gone up again to about £1.02 per litre. I can see oil prices going up to near £1.20 a litre in the next year or two? Who knows, supermarkets have a mind of their own when it comes to petrol prices.
But where should wealth come from when the big tops running oil companies are making billions? Oil is from 'our planet'.
Nick, s/s.
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 16:03 GMT
17:03 UK
I am shocked by some of the comments here.
Imagine your home being destroyed by war. Imagine your family dying from malaria, AIDS or hunger. Imagine your children being abducted to become child soldiers in the army of some crazy warlord.
Mark, Portsmouth
Imagine being a pensioner dying of cold because you can't afford to heat your home.
harry bristol, portsmouth
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 15:59 GMT
16:59 UK
NO<NO as Maggie used to say, Sort our (the governments) mess out first.
Ron, Cornwall
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 15:54 GMT
16:54 UK
Another HYS where the "readers recommended" tab makes me ashamed to be British.
Johnny W, Hull, UK
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 15:50 GMT
16:50 UK
Foreign aid is not only a moral obligation, it is also an important strategic undertaking.
Social injustices, such as widespread poverty and extravagent wealth; lack of healthcare for the poor, etc; make countries socially unstable at the individual level.
The same effect could happen in a global community, where rich countries could be threatened by poor ones - directly (like the Koreas) or indirectly, such as with economic refugees.
Aid is not a luxury, but a necessity.
Muhammad Zaman
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 15:46 GMT
16:46 UK
Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 15:52 GMT 16:52 UK
"Charity begins at home is thinley veiled racism." - Howard, London
If that is racist,put me down as one. Most of the countries we give to hate us anyway but we cannot call them racists that would not be politically correct.We British must be daft to put up with it all.
David Paget, Leeds, United Kingdom
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 15:45 GMT
16:45 UK
British "Aid" should not be being given to ANY states embarked on military expansion programmes which would rival our own forces, while huge swaithes of their populations live in dire poverty on a par with Victorian Britain. What on earth is our governments 'logic' in doing this?
CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, AreTryingToTakeOverTheWorld, United Kingdom
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 15:44 GMT
16:44 UK
The aid policy is wrong.
We should help our own needy first.
We should still have overseas that is invested for our strategc benefit.
I wonder how much cash rich Japan, Singapore and China give in foreign aid?
Gordon-Charisma Brown, Brownutopia, Republic of Tax, Spend and Waste.
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 15:43 GMT
16:43 UK
Why are we sending aid to Pakistan when we know they are harbouring members of Al Qaeda? Why are we sending aid to India when they can afford a $400m+ space program?
If we are going to send aid anywhere we need to ensure it actually goes to the people who need it, not into the pockets of politicians or questionable 'charity' groups.We also need to teach the recipients how to help themselves and not come to rely on aid.
[whirlybird24]
|
Added:
Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 15:39 GMT
16:39 UK
You may be having good intentions to develop Africa,you can send all the money that you have piled in the reserve but what you don't know is who actually benefits from your aid.Are they the commons or the politicians. Scrapping off Aid budget to Africa is as good as trusting African leaders with its impplementation.The money has to be controlled from here and the people handling it from oversea should be hand picked by the donor countries if development of Africa is what you want.
wodgot, london
|
|
This Have Your Say is
CLOSED
DEBATE STATUS
Total comments: 609
Published comments: 514
Rejected comments: 43
From Have Your Say
|