Would the UK flood situation be so bad if we spent more money protecting people in our own country rather than spending it helping those who live thousands of miles away?
Would the UK flood situation be so bad if we spent more money protecting people in our own country rather than spending it helping those who live thousands of miles away?
Yes it would be.
If we cancelled foreign aid tomorrow then the most likely outcome would be a saving, not a diversion of tax payers money to elsewhere.
We have a hand full of people who have wet carpets. A cut in foreign aid would result in significant deaths elsewhere in the world.
You're trying to ignore third world problems to address first world issues.
The amount of people in the UK that have died or been injured in the recent floods is tiny compared to the amount of people in third world countries that would die if we cut foreign aid. Wet carpets vs people's lives.
Would the UK flood situation be so bad if we spent more money protecting people in our own country rather than spending it helping those who live thousands of miles away?
The Tories have been cutting from the people who really need it the most and you want to given them a pretext to cut some more?
The below chart shows the level of cuts in Flood defences:
- Environment Agency's budget has been cut by nearly £150m in around 6 years.
- Numerous cuts to the Fire and local rescue services hampering response efforts.
The amount of people in the UK that have died or been injured in the recent floods is tiny compared to the amount of people in third world countries that would die if we cut foreign aid. Wet carpets vs people's lives.
You are aware that a significant number of Britains live in poverty? It's not as simple as you make out.
I am aware of the poverty in the UK but the OP said foreign aid. Still, the level of poverty in the UK is (in most cases- I don't doubt exceptions) not as bad as the absolute poverty in some countries. No one should be forced to drink dirty water in the UK or face malnutrition. We don't have a constant threat of malaria.
Traumatised as in seeing siblings starve to death or suffer other byproducts of extreme poverty?
So you really want to see our country degrade for the sake of other countries? Maybe you should be arguing against us bombing them rather than arguing for us pouring our money and resources into them, that would be better use of your time
[QUOTE=zigglr;61699453]Wet carpets? More like destroyed homes and traumatised children Wet carpets is trivialising it. However the scale of destruction and trauma is still far less than in some of the areas we support. Never lose compassion for others far less fortunate than ourselves.
Wet carpets is trivialising it. However the scale of destruction and trauma is still far less than in some of the areas we support. Never lose compassion for others far less fortunate than ourselves.
But you shouldn't be arguing for us to give our money to them, you should be arguing to stop the problem in that is causing it, which is us bombing them
So you really want to see our country degrade for the sake of other countries? Maybe you should be arguing against us bombing them rather than arguing for us pouring our money and resources into them, that would be better use of your time
Who said things are degrading? I'm not.
Houses built on flood plains occasionally flood. Simple solution is to make sure that you have insurance to cover any potential damage.
It's on a different level as addressing high infant mortality rates, extreme poverty etc etc.
But you shouldn't be arguing for us to give our money to them, you should be arguing to stop the problem in that is causing it, which is us bombing them
When did we last bomb sub Sahara Africa, South America, the Indian sub continent or SE Asia?