Should we have to spend 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid?

'While giving a country the money to build a hospital may sound like a great thing to do, it has only a temporary and very localised effect. The secondary, and more important long-term impact is that the country doesn’t develop its own institutions and tax systems.
The government of the recipient country would have needed to tax in order to build the hospital. But without the need to tax, the government hasn’t had to act legitimately such that its citizens will pay up on time and in full. There is no incentive for the government to respect its citizens and vice versa.'

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/foreign_aid_has_ceased_to_be_about_results

so many countries rejected our care as part of the Empire and now depend on our handouts after leaving.

smh

The Taxpayers Alliance is a very right wing pressure group who lobbies for lower taxes. An opinion piece from them is worth very little on the issue of foreign aid. They just want to spend less tax.

Actually British foreign aid is helping a lot in Africa and building up communities. The idea that giving a desperately poor community clean water is wrong, is just rather ridiculous.

If you think colonialism was a benevolent practice in large regions of the British Empire, you're gravely mistaken my friend. The British Empire tarnished many nations, reducing them down the nothing more than poverty stricken. Foreign aid is just a word for disguising what it truly is - moral reparations.

i know this is the Politically Correct revisionist version... i do not subscribe

I'm not quite sure what you mean, care to expand?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, care to expand?

You still haven't answered though. While its good building a hospital in poorer countries, who pays for the healthcare? The poorer countries can't have an NHS like system as it would be too expensive, so poorer people need to pay for there own healthcare (or use insurance healthcare system which costs money every month), so essentially you're (indirectly) making them poorer.

You also still failed to mention what British foreign aid has done. Have you got firsthand experience?

Great, I'm glad we're getting somewhere.

That's nonsense. Really. Before you can even have healthcare, you need hospitals and medicine and that's what aid provides.

Aid also stops the spread of diseases through providing vaccinations for instance. Across Africa foreign aid is working rather well and helping the region progress.

But, thats what you're saying - Foreign aid pays for hospitals etc, then shouldn't it pay for health supplies before building hospitals? You have still failed to mention, this is like the third time I have asked, name me a Hospital or School built by foreign aid.

Vaccinations are working but only in some regions. But, look at Malaria for example. Of course Malaria deaths have reduced significantly. But, African countries still struggle and are the worst in the world. Bit crazy when thats where most of the 'funding' goes isn't it.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malaria/by-country/

So you accept that aid has been a big help in preventing malaria? Good. Now you get the justification for it.

Here's some logic that Right-wingers should be able to follow.
The biggest recent increase in UK overseas Aid has been to Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Supporting refugees in these countries with sanitation, education and housing means that they are less likely to travel to the UK.
Another fairly recent project was the fight against ebola in West Africa. Spending money on treatment centres and sending UK staff to support local efforts prevented ebola from spreading to the UK.
Another major recipient is Afghanistan. Spending money to support education, particularly of girls, reduces the likelihood of these people growing up into extremists who might threaten the UK.
Pakistan also receives significant funding. At the moment there is a struggle in that country with democracy and secular government competing with religious extremism. Supporting democracy and helping the poor makes it less likely that the country will turn into its neighbour, Afghanistan.

From a purely selfish point of view, reducing poverty and disease overseas, and encouraging democracy and good governance is completely in our national interest. You can't cut funding to support refugees in Jordan and then complain when they want to travel to the UK.

Listen here, let us conquer the once British Empire again, take back India, Canada, Australia etc. Build up an army, and together, develop upon ourselves as one allied nation of countries. MAKE BRITAIN GREAT AGAIN!

The Union of the British Empire hahaha

Not really. Spending money on building clean water and sanitation systems in poorer countries is wonderfully beneficial to those communities. As is building schools and hospitals and other infrastructure.

You know, there seems to be a tendency to just think aid does nothing but actually there has been serious progress in much of Africa and a lot of that is down to foreign aid.

Yes you need the rule of law, but you also need clean drinking water and housing and schools.