Are We Less Inclined To Support Others?

In case you don't know - I didn't - the picture is of MP Nick Hurd, the minister for civic society.

Mr Hurd is angry because we are not giving enough to charity.  I'm angry because he has the gall to accuse the British public of lacking in compassion because they won't fill charities' coffers.

Speaking in response to the British Social Attitudes survey published earlier this month that found that we have become less inclined to support others:

But he said that being the fifth most generous nation was not enough.
‘The Government’s role is not to tell people what to do, but we can make it easier and more compelling for people to give.’ 


Suddenly?  I think not. Could it be that people are still smarting from the coalition's decision to spend increase funding, through the Department for International Development, for overseas aid and funding ridiculous UK projects?  £8.1bn was spent by DfID this year and serious criticism about the administering of DfID's actions persists.

I have no problem with helping the world's poor if the money is directly helping people achieve better health or clamber out of desperate poverty, but it would seem DfID don't keep proper records of their spending activities. They churn out endless reports that suggest methods which could make sure the aid is reaching the source of projects, but action is minimal. The world's poor are by-passed in many massive wealth-transfer schemes.

The UK commitment to supporting overseas development will be 0.7% of gross national income from 2013. It may seem a mere drop in the UK's ocean of debt but when politicians have to defend their spending by saying "projects are old", it merely emphasises the massive amount of money that has been wasted in recent years.

But, if much of the money spent is not being used efficiently and producing results that benefit those in need, why do DfID continue to spend it?  Until they introduce a system of accountability that accommodates publicly scrutiny, only projects which can offer evidence that donations have benefitted those in desperate need should be funded.

Annually I give to a small local charity. I know how much they spend on PR, salaries, office space and other administration. It's very clearly stated on their website. Haiti received or was pledged $11bn yet the world's unprecedented effort to rebuild it has turned into a disaster of good intentions.

Mr Hurd should give a little more thought about why we're donating less and not making the sweeping statement that we don't give enough. In my experience we're very generous, but maybe we're becoming more aware of where and how we place our hard-earned cash.  Certainly I am and no lecture from any politician will make me change my behaviour.

Money follows the law of diminishing returns. Given any problem a little money often helps, but a lot usually doesn't help lots more. Are we less inclined to support others? I think not.

source

Tweet

Social Responsibility

I've lived a fairly simple life.  For over forty years I worked earn money to pay my way and then to bring up my family.  My father taught us that we must never get into debt and always live within our means. Good sound advice. There have been many times I've made bad decisions but I've learned to live with the consequences and to resolve them to the best of my ability.  Money has never been plentiful.  When the family were young we had 'days away' rather than more expensive holidays as I thought a good education was more important.

We all make choices to suit our circumstances.  A friend's son was made redundant a few months ago and he's struggling to come to terms with his situation, although his young children seem oblivious to the crisis and are just delighted to have their dad at home.  This week he's put the family car up for sale because he needs the money to keep his family. There is no doubt he will find work but somehow I think he'll go down the self-employed route if he's fortunate enough to find good support. Scottish Enterprise or banks aren't interested in a skilled man setting up business and that's to our shame.

Throughout the months of his unemployment he's continued to train youngsters to be the next generation of Scottish athletes and it's these young people, along with his family, who give him the confidence to believe in himself. Once his car's gone he will have two changes of bus plus a reasonable walk to get to the gymnasium but he says that's the least of his troubles.

This week David Cameron announced an extra £814m towards vaccinating children against disease in the Third World.  I welcome this decision.  Every child should be protected against preventable diseases.

It's over 30 years ago when the UK government began contributing to a third world vaccination programme. We must have given £billions towards these projects and other projects such as developing clean water supplies and hygienic toilet facilities.  We were told that our contributions would see a vast improvement in the health and wellbeing of the these countries' populations in 20 years.

Thirty years on and there is little improvement yet our politicians continue to pour taxpayers' money into governments' coffers and completely disregard the corruption. I see the point in helping poorer countries but many of the countries involved are wealthier than ourselves nowadays.  Today's aid system doesn't work - it doesn't reach those who are most in need. We should only be distributing aid money upon results.  That's how most of us are paid.

David Cameron is giving away money we don't have so it will be borrowed. Is that wise?

We have an ageing population and the Coalition have yet to make any suggestions about the care of the elderly in their later years. Fortunately the Scottish government has addressed this problem and there is a system in place. It may not be perfect but Scottish politicans recognise the care of our elderly is a prime social responsibility.  The care of the elderly is only one social problem we have in this country.

The money for this vaccination project should come out of the current aid budget and the costs be strictly monitored. Too often I hear caring health workers in these countries saying promised medicines never materialised. It's part of our social responsibility to ensure they do.

We have a Prime Minister whose only concern is his standing in the world and social responsibility, for both his own people poorer countries, is well down his list of priorities.

Tweet

Overseas Aid

courtesy of Economics Help

Usually I try to see the best in people but it's very difficult to see anything of substance in the Prime Minister.  More and more he looks like a glorified salesman rather than a strong leader with a conviction to make Britain a fair place for all.

In a weak defence of his decision to give proportionately the highest amount of money among the world's leading economies in overseas aid - £8.5 billion - David Cameron insisted it was the right thing to do.

“We should be in no doubt that if we get this wrong, if we fail to support these countries, we risk giving oxygen to the extremists who prey on the frustrations and aspirations of young people.


“You would see, if we fail, more terrorism, more immigration and more instability coming from Europe’s southern border.”

There we have it.  Scaremongering is the best tactic to silence critics.

The problem is that there's no proof money does reach those most in need; if it did I'd say it was money very well spent.  But is upping the aid to North Africa from £20m to £110m a sensible move when we're so much in debt?

We're borrowing money to give away to other countries while this is happening here and that can't be right.  Moreover, in a few years the elderly population will increase dramatically yet only lip-service is being paid to the problem. In the past few years the Scottish government has recognised it and has a system in place although it is by no means perfect, at least it does offer a safety net of sorts to the elderly who may require extra care.  Where's England's solution?

What's worse is that DFID has little idea where the money goes once it leaves these shores, although there are exceptions.

All governments borrow money, but is it sensible to borrow money to give away charitably?  Wouldn't we be much better using the money to solve our own financial problems first then helping others?

If my monthly income was £500 and I needed £495 to meet my living costs I'd be happy to give the remaining £5 to a charity, but if my living costs were £500, would I borrow £5 to give to charity? It wouldn't make sense because eventually I'd be in the position where I either had to radically reduce my living costs or else be deeply involved in a debt I couldn't pay unless I could increase my income.  Governments increase income by taxation but how much longer can we cope with spiraling taxation when the basic costs of living - food, housing and utilities - are rapidly increasing?

Tweet

Public Consultations. Are They Meaningless?

Andrew Mitchell, the development secretary, has authorised the setting up of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) which he hopes will address concerns that some overseas aid is being mis-spent. It will base its inquiries on public demand, asking voters which aspects of the £11 billion aid budget should be investigated.

It's hoped the commission will quell public doubts about the value of the aid budget, which is increasing even as other public spending falls sharply.

Overall aid spending will rise from £7.8 billion this year to £11.5 billion under a coalition pledge to provide real increases in development funding.

Andrew Mitchell said: "This marks a major step forward for the interests of the British taxpayer.  The Commission will shine a light on where aid works and where improvements are needed.

"Independent scrutiny and transparent analysis will help to ensure that value for money, results and accountability define everything we do".

Very generous of Mr Mitchell to allow us to have a say isn't it.  Why do I feel this is another useless PR exercise and this committee has no intention of listening to you or me?

If you do wish to voice your opinion you can do so here.  I'm sure Mr Graham Ward, CBE and Chief Commissioner will be delighted to hear from you.  There's no rush though.  The consultation period is from 14 January for 12 weeks.  Sam Bowman is on my wave length.

Tweet

DFID - Diversity and Equality? Update

I've reposted yesterday morning's DFID post as the comment facility, for some unknown reason, was missing.  It wasn't until later in the day when I checked emails and Twitter that I was aware of the problem, thanks to some kind readers.  After spending what seemed forever on the Blogger help forums, I decided the only solution was to cut and paste it into a new post and leave the timing as it was.

My apologies.  If anyone understands why the comment facility in one post disappeared I'd be grateful if they could explain.  Until then I'll stick with my own diagnosis.  Gremlins.

Tweet

DFID - Diversity and Equality?

I've reposted this because on the original post this morning the ability to comment was missing.  No idea why so hopefully those who wish to comment can do so now.

click to enlarge

Is it right for a government department to promote one particular organisation and then say they are committed to equality? (The logo underneath the Stonewall icon, 'Positive about Disabled People', was generated by government and is awarded by Job Centre Plus to employers in England, Scotland and Wales who have made commitments to employ, keep and develop the abilities of disabled staff.)

Not only do DFID 'advertise' Stonewall on their website they also have the following framed accolade from Stonewall in their public area. It was taken by a recent visitor to the department.

Stonewall is not funded by government. It raises its own finances through donations and other sources, therefore it is a private organisation - although high in profile.

If DFID does believe in equality as well as diversity why don't they promote the likes of the VSO - which contributes much to overseas projects - on the DFID website and have a few framed posters from organisations which provide help to thousands of the world's poor. I'm sure plenty would be delighted to have information about their efforts available, in the hallowed halls of the Department For International Development, for visitors to peruse.

I agree with diversity and equality but I certainly don't agree with what appears to be favouritism from a government department.

Tweet

What A Strange World

Several times I've mentioned the largesse of the Department of International Development and it appears the new government is hell-bent on continuing Labour's generosity.

Only this week the coalition government cut £2 billion's worth of domestic projects and increased the foreign aid budget to £13 billion a year.

Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told MPs this week that the domestic cuts were necessary to tackle the budget deficit and would be done in a fair way. In the same speech he accused the previous Labour regime of spending money which it knew it didn't have.

The same day Andrew Mitchell, foreign aid minister, issued a statement on the DFID website which said that the 'Government has made clear that the international development budget will increase to 0.7% of Gross National Income from 2013.

According to the World Bank on 16 June, 2010, Britain GNI was $2 trillion or £1,504,942,701,833 in our money. The aim of 0.7% of the GNI figure is just over £10.5 billion but this doesn't include the administration costs of the DFID which, in the past, have usually added a further £2 billion to the department's budget.

To summarise, the Westminster government has committed itself to spending around £13 billion in foreign aid. Currently Britain pays around £1 - £3bn per week (depending on various opinions/sources) in interest on the deficit - money which is borrowed to pay for foreign aid, the war in Afghanistan, EU membership and other projects, yet we don't have enough money to look after our elderly.

What a strange world.

Tweet

The Greatest DFID Give Away

click to enlarge

Did you too have to read the heading twice on the above press release? 'UK aid hits 45 year high'.

While the country struggles with the worst recession since the 30s, Douglas Alexander's department, DFID, boasts the UK spent 0.52% of Gross National Income on overseas aid in 2009 - the highest proportion since 1964.

We are one of the few G8 countries on course to meet its 2005 Gleneagles commitment of 0.7%.

Official Development Assistance reached £7,365 million in 2009 which is an increase of more than £1 billion on the previous year's figure.

A draft bill is currently before Parliament which would place a legal duty on the International Development Secretary to ensure that the UK spends 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013.

Douglas Alexander said: "People across the UK can be proud that this country is leading the world in the fight against global poverty."

I'm certainly not proud. Until the people of this country get a first class healthcare system, a top quality education system and our elderly receive a pension with which they can support themselves without having to beg for taxpayers' money, then overseas aid should be reduced. Of course there's also the small matter of government debt. Why are we giving away money when we're paying millions, in interest alone, on government loans? It's doesn't make economic sense yet it continues to go on.

No doubt we fund some excellent projects overseas but millions is spent on propaganda, funding charities such as Oxfam and giving bilateral aid to countries such as India. DFID needs to stop acting like a charity for the world and we need to start asking where the money really goes.

Tweet

More Expensive Brainwashing

Yes, it's Douglas Alexander's department the DFID, that bounteous source of British taxpayers money to other countries in the world.

Aside from millions of pounds given to various overseas projects this week, this one caught my interest: 'Department for International Development (DFID) launch Climate and Development Knowledge Network'.

The UK, through DFID, is funding the project with £50m over five years it was announced at the Agenda 2010 (DFID) annual conference today and it will be launched in March.

This Network will link 60 developing countries with leading climate and development experts, allowing them to commission and share knowledge on how best to tackle the effects of climate change.

Simon Maxwell, Chair of the Climate Network said:

“There are three key features of work we will carry out through the Climate Change and Development Knowledge Network. First, we will be passionate about tackling climate change, but also about tackling poverty and achieving human development. Second, we will support research, but in a way which provides the information that decision-makers need for evidence-based policy making. Third, we will work in response to the needs of developing countries, but also focus our resources to make maximum impact.”

They don't give up do they.

If you do read the link above you will also see Britain is to give £30 million to help people who have been displaced by the fighting in Pakistan. Another £10 million (and a further £20 million subject to performance) will be given to a Multi Donor Trust Fund for reconstruction and development in conflict affected areas bordering Afghanistan.

I read, not so long ago, there's more money in war than any other business on earth. Now I'm beginning to believe it but climate change isn't so far behind. If you follow the excellent Richard North he records much of the expenditure our government uses on brainwashing the population in UK and beyond.

Tweet