No, really, the foreign aid budget is sacrosanct

Multimilion-pound Ajacs project to fund new police force put on hold after reports cash was handed straight to extremists

It is, obviously, entirely vital that we send 0.7% of everything off to poor foreigners every year.

Isn’t it?

16 comments on “No, really, the foreign aid budget is sacrosanct

  1. “Other evidence suggested dead and fictitious people were on the force’s payroll.”

    Good grief, where do they think this place is, Tower Hamlets ward on election night…?

  2. tl;dr:

    “British and American governments fund terrorists to overthrow Syrian government and then find out they’re funding terrorists.”

    Are they evil or just stupid?

  3. It is, obviously, entirely vital that we send 0.7% of everything off to poor foreigners every year.

    And then borrow the money to do it!

  4. It is, obviously, entirely vital that we send 0.7% of everything off to poor foreigners every year.

    Rich foreigners, in the main.

  5. I do agree that the foreign aid budget should be sacrosanct, 0% being the desired value. If we want to give money to rich foreigners we can perfectly well do it individually rather than having civil servants skim off their percentage.

    If HMG wants a foreign bribes budget, that’s OK with me. Label the pot honestly: the Foreign Affairs Lubrication Fund would be a good title.

  6. How about we all get a 0.7% tax refund in the post every April. With the letter comes a few charity stamped addressed envelopes to redirect a contribution. Included in the list is the Department for overseas development, and the dept is entirely run by voluntary donations. Everyone happy?

  7. Well it saves everyone a lot of time and trouble. Usually the British government waits until the Jihadis move to London before showering them with my cash.

  8. The 0.7% GDP target is for money given to countries on the OECD’s Official Development Assistance list only. Total foreign aid bill is even bigger.

  9. they can’t think of better ways to piss our money away. The basic problem for syria is that there are too many syrians- uncontrolled population growth (no birth control in islam) led to the collapse of syrian agriculture ( massive depletion of water reserves) and mass exodus to the cities. The israelis offered them help with their water management techniques being experts in the field – but you know – JEWS. Add in the arab/muslim tribal conflicts and the result was inevitable. The whole of the middle east shares the same problem – http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262936/muslim-world-permanent-refugee-crisis-daniel-greenfield.

    we are wasting our time and money trying to sort out their problems

  10. Emil- nice pendant you have there though to be even danglier i didn’t actually say 0.7% of taxes. But no matter, maybe we get a bit of re-distribution in our refund and probably is a good idea we don’t borrow the amount that we would give overseas before the refund.

  11. Noone who thinks that a group with ‘Free’ or ‘Democratic’ in the name – especially in a Middle Eastern country where these things are antithetical to the culture if they are even genuinely believed in by memebers of the group – should be allowed to vote.

    The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is the most secular, non-sectarian, pro-education, pro-freedom group in Syria. The Baath Party is the second. And instead we support Sunni terrorists like those who under Saudi Arabian government leadership attacked the US on 9/11.

    Or ‘free democratic’ Sunnis who just want the right to not have the Allawiites in power force their girls to go to school past age 10.

  12. Any spending by the UK on Arab countries that does not arrive in the form of napalm B is a shocking misallocation of resources.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.