No money should be given to any country for any reason if that country does not respect those with protected characteristics. Money should also not go to countries who invest more than GDP into armed forces or space projects.
This will reduce tax payers money going abroad and strongly encourage other countries to offer equal opportunities to all.
Abolish it. Itâs mostly money laundering anyway.
Iâd almost argue that it isnât just laundering. We found out that labour (and possibly the Tories) are funneling money to places like Syria and of course sending money to Pakistan, but I wonder if they are doing the hunch idea of âpurchasing votesâ. I wonât push that thought past that point, but nonetheless it needs to stop. It should be stopped for a 5-10 year period, to be spent on the indigenous of Britain, or towards an intense work force to remove illegals.
David Lammyâs genius idea -
ÂŁ5M funding to go to Tunisia to tackle small boats coming into the UK, funding to upskill migrants to stop them coming into the UK.
Furthermore, up to ÂŁ1M to fund the International Organisation for Integration Assisted voluntary Returns and reintegration programme to support migrants that have no legal right to be in Tunisa and to return and re-integrate them into their home countries - weâre paying to do Tunisiaâs migration borders and immigration control.
You cannot make this stuff up. They are now promoting an open cheque book to nation states - let the citizens of your country come to the UK illegally and we will also write your nation state a cheque! This is total madness.
By far the smartest approach would be to simply end âforeign aidâ, and redirect all funding previously allocated to it to a British Overseas Investment Fund. This would both achieve the supposed aims of foreign aid better than foreign aid, would avoid accusations from the left that we are âcruelâ or âheartlessâ, and increase national wealth and power.
Currently the supposed âinfluenceâ we derive from foreign aid disappears the second we stop paying it, whereas an investment fund that acquired businesses and assets in countries that it invested in, would provide us with continually increasing influence. For example if we gave a billion pounds a year to Bangladesh for a decade, then stopped paying, we would have zero ongoing influence and nothing to show for it. If we invested a billion pounds a year in Bangladeshi businesses, after a decade we would have 10 billion pounds of assets and the ongoing influence of that ownership in the Bagladeshi economy.
Moreover, foreign aid actually does little to help countries develop, business investment is a much better long term help to nations than letting left wing NGOs and corrupt governments profit.
So this would be a policy that would;
-avoid left wing accusations of âheartlesslyâ cutting the aid budget
-do more for the economic development of the nations we are trying to help
-accrue national wealth for the British people
-create ongoing influence that would increase over time as the size of the overseas investments accrued to the bank
-defund leftist NGOs
My view is that taxation should be used in the country that takes the tax. Government giving our money to a foreign government or organisation should never happen. Except in extreme humanitarian disaster situations.
If individuals want to give money, they are free to do so.
Your suggestion of a British Overseas Investment Fund is a different issue to David Lammy recent move to give away tax payers money to stop the boats.
Lammy/Starmer is giving handouts to Tunisa in a bid to stop illegals coming into the UK, totally wrong approach hes giving them candy to sweeten them up its an aproach weak people take. Starmer does not priortise the British people based on his globalist and socialist views of taking from the ones that have worked hard to build their wealth and give it to those that dont want to work.
Any investments need to be made in countries where there is political stability and an educated population. It would be very risky to make a financial investment in countries like Bangladesh, as a private investor I would stay clear of these countries and I certainly would not allocate public funds here either.
I do agree however unless the corrupt governments and NGOâs are wiped clean the nation will still fall behind - funds or no funds. Its down to the citizens of that country to make a stand and fight for democracy.
The left will also twist any situation based on their own agendas
Leaders need to take a firm stance and take the right action and not focus on âlooking goodâ
I would stop all foreign aid money. So much is taken by corrupt regimes and the poor people see no benefitâŠInstead I would like to see highly skilled British people who would be paid and willing to go to the countries to help the people, to teach them how to be self sufficient in anything they need. We have thousands of unemployed people who may be willing to get involved in helping poor countries to build wells, infrastructure and teach skills needed to build better lives.
Although I agree that this would be better than foreign aid, I think for now internal investment is needed. Why build a factory in Libya when the welsh valleys need one more. Maybe after a while UK owned freeports in different nations could be established but for now we need a period to consolidate.
Personally I would make it harder to invest outside of the country.
I totally agree we need to bring back industries/manufacturing back to the UK including utilising our farmland for food production rather than paying the farmers cheques not to produce and having trade agreements with Europe to import food when we can grow on UK soil. Utterly ridiculous, or is it because they have some back hand deals going on behind the scenes.
We send money to Countries who have space programmes. Why?
We give it to them in ÂŁâs so that they spend it on the UK economy, it is effectively a kickback.
It is just corruption.
Absolutely. Just look at the noun âForeign Aidâ and what do you see? I see a diliberately meaningless noun, compared to âFamine relieveâ or many other more meaningful words. Even those more meaningful terms are open to corruption, but we should refuse to go anywhere near deliberately deceptive THINGS.
Because it does not go to them but gets intercepted
Think of all the extra money that would be saved by getting rid of the FCDO.
Just on the civil service costs alone!
Basically we need a British version of DOGE. We need a completely accountable organisaton that seeks to clear out the corruption of centuries of national mismanagement. I have a few policies that I would like to add but I sincerely think we need to look at reducing legislation, finding and removing corruption with Treason laws being made use of. Isnât it interesting that Treason has only been repealed in the the last 10 years.
I support foreign aid for natural disasters and war relief. I only other thing I would support is building refugee camps in third countries so they donât all come to the UK and leverage so we can get other countries to do whatâs in British interests.
