As several people have pointed out

Third, the charities need to reconnect with the public. It is easy enough to make the case for humanitarian aid when there are famines, floods and hurricanes, and that is reflected in the generosity with which people respond to disaster appeals.

But most of the Ggovernment’s aid budget is spent on longer term development work – and here voters are more sceptical about whether the money they are providing through their taxes is being spent well. Together, the development charities and the government need to be more vocal about where aid is making a difference, as well as more honest about where it has failed.

Trade, not aid.

One could even craft a policy here. IDA costs some £11 billion a year. That would make a nice little training fund for those temporarily displaced by unilateral free trade. So, why not do exactly that? The trade would lift more out of poverty in the first place, we get to say we’re spending it at home, on us. And we kill off Oxfam along the way. What’s not to like?

Note that this isn’t even supposed to be an economic policy (that would be just have the unilateral free trade anyway), it’s a political one.

Akin to the £350 million battlebus for the NHS of course.

9 comments on “As several people have pointed out

  1. But most of the Ggovernment’s aid budget is spent on longer term development work

    No it is not. I would love it if they were building roads or railways or ports or power stations.

    They are “empowering” Ethiopia’s version of the Spice Girls and making sure that the lesbians can push abortion on every pre-teen girl in the Third World.

    Why the f**k should I pay for that? Frankly I would rather give my money to the Taliban. Although I am probably doing that too.

  2. Dig into the facilitation payments that charities make in order to be allowed to operate in these countries and yes you are giving money to the Taliban, or the local gangsters.

  3. isp – “Dig into the facilitation payments that charities make in order to be allowed to operate in these countries and yes you are giving money to the Taliban, or the local gangsters.”

    CNN actually said so the other day. They had a report on Somalia and it turns out that Al-Shabab’s main source of money is holding up aid trucks on the roads around the country.

    Foreign is difficult. I wonder if these people have ever put any sustained thought into what should or must be done? What is moral and what is not? Would it be alright to torture some young girls if it meant more got fed? Because that is pretty much what they are doing by proxy.

  4. War Games: The Story of Aid and War in Modern Times Paperback – 19 Apr 201

    recommended by someone else here the other day.

    Read it and you will never give to an aid organisation again. Spoiler alert
    1. “farming of recipients of aid”
    2. what changed to make the african wars so gruesome and is there a link to the incentive structure of 25 wars and the aid money is going to whichever one wins the tv rating war

  5. 11 billion… Christ!

    That’s a v good idea. If we’re talking political policies, rather than purely sensible ones, you could declare the 11 billion retraining budget is to be administered by the unions and thus footwrong momentum.

  6. Re Facilitation payments….

    How do they avoid falling foul of the UK bribery act or its US equivalent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

  7. because no attorney general in the US is going to try and make his name by choosing to prosecute oxfam. Besides unlike a company you can’t shake em down for a hefty fine.

    ditto, look at how the UK chooses who to prosecute

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.