Balancing the UK budget

A question about : Balancing the UK budget

Regarding the above and all the sorrowful handwringing about having to make cuts to services, welfare etc, I would like to know WHY no-one, i.e MP or any others for that matter, aren't asking the Chancellor to explain why people in this country have to, tighten their belts and accept these cuts due to a lack of money when we are STILL GIVING AWAY MILLIONS OF POUNDS TO OTHER COUNTRIES!!! Is it only me that finds this unbelievable and crazy or do other people agree that A) Charity begins at home, (there are people in this country suffering because of these drastic cuts and having to rely more and more on food banks, and making a choice of whether to heat their homes, or freeze due to the sky high utility bills.
B)Why isn't the chancellor chasing and making all these companies that are avoiding paying tax here in the UK, pay their Tax Bill?? Surely this would BALANCE THE BOOKS!!!

Best answers:

• 1. We reduce the risk of terrorism to ourselves if we make life more livable in other countries (cheaper and easier than more security here).
  2. Fewer economic immigrants to the UK if there's less famine and disease in poorer countries.
  3. The amount we pay in aid is such a tiny, tiny fraction of the UK budget that cutting it would make no appreciable difference to our lives.
  4. We are one of the few countries that give anything - if we cut aid people starve and die.
  5. We'll probably get most of it back by selling them arms anyway.
  Just off the top of my head. I'm not saying the above are right, that's just what occurs to me as reasoning for overseas aid.
• Thanks for your reply, 1) we give millions in foreign aid to Pakistan to make there lives more liveable, but its the main training ground for the Taliban. And as a country they are richer than we are so why are we sending them money?? 2) Economic migrants will always travel, they come for a better standard of living, and whilst we have 2.5 million people unemployed in this country measures should be taken to stop them and that DOESN'T include giving money to them, MP's are elected to look after the interests of UK citizens not every other countries.
  3) whilst the declared foreign aid budget may well be tiny its the UNDECLARED Aid that we need to stop, like the Ј125 million given to African countries so they can have free solar energy, whilst the people in this country suffer from ever increasing utility bills and shrinking incomes, this is just one example of many.
  4) Most of the aid we give is stopped at the top of the countries chain due to corruption that's why people starve and die.
  5) I agree that selling arms is wrong, and encourages wars
• This question is as artificial as the artificial differentiation between types of aid that Britain and the developed countries have adopted ie domestic aid and overseas aid. People in need are in need regardless of their Nationality or country of residence. There is a much more sensible differentiation between types of aid: development aid and disaster relief. This is the way the pot should be divided. We need to legislate for a new support agency with two divisions: one to receive, scrutinise and where appropriate finance tenders for development projects and one to identify disasters and co-ordinate relief. Financing should be agreed by a combination of annual and extra-ordinary Statutory Instruments. Anybody can tender for access to funds and dedicated specialist can make cost benefit analyses of the bids thereby making the whole process entirely transparent and highly efficient. The whole of Parliament would be involved in budget approval. That way the country could support work by one of my favourite charities abroad - Riders for life' whilst also supporting one of my favourite domestic charities - Admiral nurses for dementia sufferers; and also supporting response to everything from Tsunami relief to assistance for displaced persons. These changes would kill off half the petitions to the Department of International Development at a stroke. Indeed unless the Nation accepts that 'International' includes the Home Territories, it would also kill off the Department for International Development.
  Somebody please tell me why this would not be a common sense approach?
  For information: the Development Co-ordination Directorate of the OECD has 29 members in Europe, the USA, Japan and Korea. Five of them exceed recommended giving as a percentage of GNI and another 3 top Britain's giving on this measure. Japan, Italy and Korea are tail end Charlies giving 1/4 to 1/5 of the GNI given by the UK.