Skip to main content

UKIP says Britain should slash its foreign aid budget


The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is calling for an 80 percent cut to the foreign aid budget so the money can be spent on national infrastructure.

Britain currently spends around £12.5 billion ($15.5 billion) a year supporting developing and war-torn countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and South Sudan.

But UKIP says the aid is inadequate, does not truly alleviate poverty, leaves those receiving it dependent on support, and perpetuates bad government.

A paper published by the party this week outlines the downfalls of the system, arguing that much of what is spent in foreign aid actually ends up in the pockets of charitable organizations such as Oxfam and the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation.

“The UK government is committed to spend 0.7 percent of [gross national income] on overseas aid. This has resulted in a significant real-terms increase in the aid budget in recent years, even as other departmental budgets have been cut, financial pressure on the NHS (National Health Service) and social care services has grown, and the annual budget deficit is still far from eliminated,” the document, authored by the party’s speechwriter Simon Gordon, read.
“This raises the question: is prioritizing international aid over public services at home the right use of public resources?”
Britain’s humanitarian spending has doubled since 2011.

UKIP believes the budget should be cut to £2.5 billion per year and limited to intervention in situations of natural or humanitarian emergency or eradicating diseases.

Almost £1.3 billion was spent in 2015 on supporting humanitarian efforts in Syria and Yemen – a sharp rise on the £422 million spent in 2011.

UKIP insists the foreign aid budget is based on “inaccurate assumptions,” and that investing in trade relations would offer a better deal for both parties.

Read the Full article here >>

Source Russia Today RT.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politicians are wrong about what the public want

So the, out of touch political elite are trying to say that the public would be happy to cough up an extra £2000 a year, per household to prop up the NHS? 
Advertisers website Wrong! While many British families struggle to make ends meet, the political elite thinks that people will be glad to fund a failing business that is being run into the ground because of their failed policies on how the NHS is managed?

No. This just shows that we have monkeys running our country! Many people on Facebook have shared the above post on various pages; a large number of those people don't even do politics. If our political elite were more than just yes men weighed down by the chains of political correctness, they would see that the people of Britain have had enough. 
Ever increasing taxation to try and fix their mistakes? 
Continuiosly using the NHS as a stick to beat the opposition or a classic party political paper dragon! (Paper Dragon): a politician or political party whocampaign to fox the proble…

PETITION - Keep Swinson OUT of the Lords

Keep Jo Swinson from being given a Peerage.
Sign the petition and share this everywhere

If Jo Swinson is given honors, it will be a scandal and ANOTHER Nail in the coffin for the House of Lords. Sign the petition

CLICK HERE TO SIGN

Has the Supreme Court handed Boris Johnson a Brexit escape route?

The Supreme Court’s judgment is the latest constitutional perversion after the Benn act. But ironically it may assist the Government in achieving its objective of Britain leaving the EU by 31 October, without having to seek an extension to the Article 50 process.
In paragraph 34, the Supreme Court states that its ‘proper function’ under our constitution is to give effect to the separation of powers (which justifies court intervention in relation to prorogation). Then, in what appears to be an innocuous sentence in paragraph 55, it says that it is to be “remember[ed] always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts.”
Yet the Benn Act manifestly contradicts this principle. It dictates how the Government must conduct negotiations with a foreign body, the EU, to the extent of obliging the Prime Minister to write specifically worded letters and accept whatever extension it offers when certain conditions are not met. In the situation when t…