I posted previously about George Osborne's Autumn Statement and and the International Aid budget.
I will send this blog, via Twitter, to George Osborne and David Cameron. The same sentiments though, apply in the rest of the European and the USA. However, I don't really expect common-sense to suddenly break-out in the upper reaches of the UK Government.
How, even in the crazy world in which we find ourselves, can it possibly make any sense for a government to borrow money, so that it can give this money to another country?
Think about that.
Would you borrow money, so that you could donate it to charity? Indeed, would you do so, knowing that it is your children and your children's children and their children that would have to pay the interest on it?
I have heard all of the stuff about 'rich' countries having a 'duty' to share the wealth with the poorer ones but how do we define 'wealthy' and 'poor'?
Is a country 'wealthy' if it has debt close to 100% of its GDP? For that matter, is a country 'poor' if it can dispatch rockets into space?
In 2013, the UK gave aid to the value of £249M to Nigeria. In case you missed it, Nigeria has huge oil reserves but the almost endemic corruption means that the country has to import fuel to illuminate homes, cook food and drive vehicles. Does it really make sense for the UK to borrow money to send to Nigeria?
Britain gave £104M to Ghana, which is in the midst of an oil fueled boom!
Crazy as that sounds, Britain also borrowed £946K to give to Argentina. The same Argentina that constantly threatens Britons in the Falkland Islands. The same Argentina that invaded the Falklands and now requires Britain to retain a military presence on the islands. I am not making this up!
Then there is Brazil £5.5M and India, receiver of a whopping £269M of aid. These are the very same countries that are supposed to be the emerging economic powerhouses! Brazil is actually running a budget surplus, at the moment. The UK is borrowing money to give to Brazil. The UK is running a deficit of 3.6% of GDP and a country that is running a surplus of 1.6% of GDP. This is the same Brazil that has a GDP which is the seventh largest in the world! The UK? The UK is the sixth largest in the world.
Yesterday, in the Houses of Parliament, Member's of Parliament voted on a bill which will enshrine, in law, a guarantee that the UK will donate 0.7% of GDP to international aid. Doesn't matter what state our economy is in. We donate 0.7%. Doesn't matter if people are dying on the streets of the UK. We donate 0.7%. This is the liberal idiocy equivalent of Nero's antics with a fiddle!
In what world can it make sense to guarantee, by statute, that we will always donate 0.7% of GDP to international aid?
If you need an example of just how out of touch politicians are, how remote the 'Westminster bubble' has left them, then this is it.
Over to you, George and David!
I will send this blog, via Twitter, to George Osborne and David Cameron. The same sentiments though, apply in the rest of the European and the USA. However, I don't really expect common-sense to suddenly break-out in the upper reaches of the UK Government.
How, even in the crazy world in which we find ourselves, can it possibly make any sense for a government to borrow money, so that it can give this money to another country?
Think about that.
Would you borrow money, so that you could donate it to charity? Indeed, would you do so, knowing that it is your children and your children's children and their children that would have to pay the interest on it?
I have heard all of the stuff about 'rich' countries having a 'duty' to share the wealth with the poorer ones but how do we define 'wealthy' and 'poor'?
Is a country 'wealthy' if it has debt close to 100% of its GDP? For that matter, is a country 'poor' if it can dispatch rockets into space?
In 2013, the UK gave aid to the value of £249M to Nigeria. In case you missed it, Nigeria has huge oil reserves but the almost endemic corruption means that the country has to import fuel to illuminate homes, cook food and drive vehicles. Does it really make sense for the UK to borrow money to send to Nigeria?
Britain gave £104M to Ghana, which is in the midst of an oil fueled boom!
Crazy as that sounds, Britain also borrowed £946K to give to Argentina. The same Argentina that constantly threatens Britons in the Falkland Islands. The same Argentina that invaded the Falklands and now requires Britain to retain a military presence on the islands. I am not making this up!
Then there is Brazil £5.5M and India, receiver of a whopping £269M of aid. These are the very same countries that are supposed to be the emerging economic powerhouses! Brazil is actually running a budget surplus, at the moment. The UK is borrowing money to give to Brazil. The UK is running a deficit of 3.6% of GDP and a country that is running a surplus of 1.6% of GDP. This is the same Brazil that has a GDP which is the seventh largest in the world! The UK? The UK is the sixth largest in the world.
Yesterday, in the Houses of Parliament, Member's of Parliament voted on a bill which will enshrine, in law, a guarantee that the UK will donate 0.7% of GDP to international aid. Doesn't matter what state our economy is in. We donate 0.7%. Doesn't matter if people are dying on the streets of the UK. We donate 0.7%. This is the liberal idiocy equivalent of Nero's antics with a fiddle!
In what world can it make sense to guarantee, by statute, that we will always donate 0.7% of GDP to international aid?
If you need an example of just how out of touch politicians are, how remote the 'Westminster bubble' has left them, then this is it.
Over to you, George and David!
No comments:
Post a Comment