Do You Agree That Uk's Over £12 Bn Pa Dfid Budget Should Not Be Fixed At 0.7% Of Gdp But Flexible As Regards Causes To Fund & Amounts Used Each Year?

[willbewhatiwill]

UK's over £12 bn pa DFID budget should not be fixed at 0.7% of GDP but flexible as regards causes to fund & amounts used each year (depending on circumstances). UK's £12 bn pa Department for International Development (DFID) budget should be redefined so that:

:: UK’s aid contributions to EU, UN, private charities, certain military intervention abroad, etc should be counted as part (not in addition to) of our DFID budget.

:: Build ships for water desalination, delivering medical aid (cum Hospital ship, Royal Yacht), land reclamation to deliver effective foreign aid directly; serving areas affected by famine, drought, disasters, conflicts, epidemics, etc. This will ensure that the aid money is directly, swiftly & effectively delivered.

:: Aid budget left unspent can be returned back to the treasury or bought forward for next financial year – rather than having to spend it all will-nilly all within one financial year.

:: Resettle illegal immigrants & deportees back to their homeland using overseas aid funds.

:: Funding to give asylum seekers refuge should be funded by overseas aid budget, as well as use to fund overseas detention centres for all UK illegal immigrants. Asylum seekers should only temporarily (not indefinite leave to remain in UK) be allowed to seek refuge in an island or British Overseas Territories, funded by the overseas aid budget.

:: Foreign aid should be conditional that the country in receipt that they will accept their failed asylum seekers & illegal immigrants back with or without passports/documentation.

:: Build a fleet of ocean going prison ships for illegal immigrants & foreign prisoners with the dual purpose of transporting them to their homeland, as well as acting as a prison.

[EDDIE51]

A very confused question, you seem to be trying to ask several unrelated questions at once, can you clarify.

[willbewhatiwill]

Also,

:: There should be food banks funded (in collaboration with recognized charities) from our £12bn DFID aid program, after all charity begins at home.

:: £12bn DFID aid program, should also be used to support public service departments (like NHS, education, defence, policing) that may need extra cash to boast their work at home & abroad (not only abroad).

[cassa333]

Not sure about all over seas aid budget but 12 b is far too much when what we seem to see in the public is vanity projects to make 'some people' appear grand and careing.

Overseas aid, in whatever guise or pot it is paid from should have definite impact in the area receiving the aid.

For me it shouldn't be used for little local projects that get a specific demographic 'to work or education or accommodation' or such like. It shouldn't be going to a country that has its own space agency or nuclear power/arms. If they can affor that they can afford their projects.

Legitimate free trade is the best aid (other than disaster aid) that can be given to a third world country. It encourages self reliance and a build up of assets and ability to ride out tougher times.

[anotheoldgit]

Are you the old AB Editor willbewhatiwill?

[willbewhatiwill]

EDDIE51,

UK's over £12 bn pa DFID budget should not be (1) fixed at 0.7% of GDP (2) flexible as regards causes to fund & amounts used each year (a) abroad and (b) also during declared disaster zone in UK mainland.

[Gromit]

It is not a fixed amount (£) it is a fixed percentage.

So the more money the country generates, the more that goes on aid. If we have a bad year economically, then the amount in £s goes down.

That is rhe best system to have, so no, we shoyld not mess with the formula.

[willbewhatiwill]

Gromit,
I know that DIFD funds is fixed at 0.7% of GDP, which currently represent well over £12bn pa - far, far too much, as £4bn sounds more reasonable!

[ToraToraTora]

we should not commit ourselves at all, give them sweet FA.

[fender62]

money would be better spent shoring up border defences and internal security, over seas aide as it seems has made 0 impact, giant money pit thats paid for by you, without any consultation where it's spent and on what, far as i see it's time to take care of the uk only, sounds harsh..i think foreign aide could spent on contraception for poor countries and enforced, or add it to water or some other means. the alternative is let them all in..and how many millions or billion?, it's not genocide preventing unwanted births, only for them to die one way or another. or perhaps some aliens will come down and sort out the human race and the mess were in, doubt it..we are on our own here.

[New Judge]

The country is running a huge deficit and has an ever-increasing debt which now amounts to almost 90%of GDP. That debt costs more to service than is spent on Personal Social Services, Transport or Housing and the Environment and almost as much as the entire defence budget. So...

- The idea that we should spend anything at all on "Overseas Development" is laughable (if it were not so serious)
- The idea that it should be a fixed percentage of anything is ridiculous.
- The idea that it should be a fixed percentage of our "turnover" (for that's what GDP is) is utter lunacy.

I could just about see a case for expenditure to help with natural disasters and catastrophes IF the country was running a surplus and essential services at home were fully funded. But to lavish money - much of which is unaccountable and provides no particular aid for anybody - on foreign schemes simply because we have to is criminal. The current public debt will have to be paid by the very people who recently suggested that their future has been jeopardised because of Brexit. Well Brexit will be a stroll in the park when the excrement hits the fan with public debt and those same people praying at the feet of the Messiah that is Jeremy Corbyn (who has promised them the earth to be paid for with yet more borrowed money) will realise this when they no longer know everything (and begin paying to keep themselves).

[RobNorth]

No - if you lift the cap for any reason you will see an immediate rise - it's human nature to spend all that is available, especially when it's "Government" money. The highly paid administrators would immediately be paid more, comparing the size of their "responsibilities" alongside those of top FTSE executives, their plush offices in Central London would suddenly require refurbishment and they would all need the latest laptops and tablets to prevent WWIII.

[willbewhatiwill]

RobNorth,
Foreign aid funds could be better spend on paying public workers more, whose wages has not risen in accord with inflation for about 7 years.

Capped public sector pay should not last indefinitely, though workers must be effective & efficient, not unnecessary increase staff.