£814 million.....

[CarlMetro]

.......is how much the UK government pledged to donate to the Global Alliance on Vacines and Immunisation last week.

BBC News - Cameron pledges more money to fund child vaccines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13744922)

The world as a whole was asked for £2.4 billion to fund the immunisation programme for aproximatley 4 million people in some of the worlds poorer countries. Bill Gates, via his charity pledged £600 million which I thought was brilliant. Personally I don't have a problem with helping out someone who is worse off than yourself and aplaud David Cameron for pledging help. However I do have two very major issues with the UK pledge.

My first issue is with the shear size of our (Uk) pledge in comparrison to other leading world economies. The £814 million is in addition to the £650 million whave already pledged over the next 4 years, far more than any other world leading econonmy. For example, the USA is pledging a mere £280 million whilst others such as France (£90 million), Germany (£45 million) and Italy (£16 million) whose home economies are stronger than the UKs seem to be making token gestures.

My second issue is this. As I have already said, I'm all for helping out someone in need but, and it's a big but in my world, surely you have to make sure your own home is doing OK before you start helping others out to such a massive degree? The UK is currently on its knees and has been for some time. We are fast heading into a double-dip recession, local authorities are making thousands of workers redundant. Pepole are being told to take pay cuts or lose their jobs. We have local councils turning off street lights to save money. The cost of living increases on an almost daily basis and does not look like improving in the near future either.

I understand that these people are dying from very preventable diseases, 2 million under fives die from pnemonia each year alone, but why is the UK more responsible for saving these lives than any other country?

[Dave B]

We do have a track record of punching well above our weight when it comes to foreign aid. I guess there's an argument that if nobody else is bothering to such an extent then why should we? However, I feel that it does give us something to be proud about (as distinct from, say, our shamefully disproportionate spending on military action) and shows that were are capable of leading by example. Just a shame that so few are following...

[555-04Q2]

Here's a tip that you can forward to your local minister who can forward it on to his MP who can forward it onto.....

The foreign aid money is wasted. I see first hand what is done with the foreign aid money over here in Africa and the majority of the money does not go to where it should :(

[Retro Formula 1]

Here's a tip that you can forward to your local minister who can forward it on to his MP who can forward it onto.....

The foreign aid money is wasted. I see first hand what is done with the foreign aid money over here in Africa and the majority of the money does not go to where it should :(

As harsh as it seems, I agree with you.

When money isn't misappropriated, it is usually used to artificially maintain people in a state of poverty, usually in a Country that is incapable of sustaining them without long term aid.

In effect, aid maintains and increases poverty where fate and Mother Nature is seeking to find a sustainable equilibrium.

[555-04Q2]

As harsh as it seems, I agree with you.

When money isn't misappropriated, it is usually used to artificially maintain people in a state of poverty, usually in a Country that is incapable of sustaining them without long term aid.

In effect, aid maintains and increases poverty where fate and Mother Nature is seeking to find a sustainable equilibrium.

Yup. My company has manufactured products on numerous occasions in the past for projects funded by aid agencies such as American Aid To Africa. We no longer supply these aid contracts as we refused to pay the backhands the "people in charge" wanted. Of the budgets allocated, a lot of it is wasted/stolen etc.

As you say, the aid merely makes the people permanent dependants on aid and makes a few "connected" people rather wealthy.

[Malbec]

I understand that these people are dying from very preventable diseases, 2 million under fives die from pnemonia each year alone, but why is the UK more responsible for saving these lives than any other country?

Where are the pharmaceutical companies involved in manufacturing and distributing most of these vaccines based? How many of them are thinking of closing down their UK based research and manufacturing facilities? Therein lies your answer.

[Garry Walker]

Charity starts at home. There are enough problems in UK that need solving, so wasting money on those who are far too stupid to help themselves is just that - wasting money. Let`s take africa - we give them vaccines, we give them food so that they could reproduce even quicker, yet they are unable to sustain any meaningul level of life on their own, so we have to feed them even more. Idiotic. Time to let nature take it`s course.

[Daniel]

Where are the pharmaceutical companies involved in manufacturing and distributing most of these vaccines based? How many of them are thinking of closing down their UK based research and manufacturing facilities? Therein lies your answer.

I think someone has answered the question! :)

[emporer_k]

I work in the civil service and 7 out of 17 people in my department are going to be made redundant, yet somehow the government can somehow afford to splurge such a disproportionately large sum on making Cameron look good on the world stage. :(

[Daniel]

Charity starts at home. There are enough problems in UK that need solving, so wasting money on those who are far too stupid to help themselves is just that - wasting money. Let`s take africa - we give them vaccines, we give them food so that they could reproduce even quicker, yet they are unable to sustain any meaningul level of life on their own, so we have to feed them even more. Idiotic. Time to let nature take it`s course.

I tend to agree. They need to keep the people they've got now alive rather than sustaining a growth rate which is artificially supported by aid.

[Malbec]

Charity starts at home. There are enough problems in UK that need solving, so wasting money on those who are far too stupid to help themselves is just that - wasting money. Let`s take africa - we give them vaccines, we give them food so that they could reproduce even quicker, yet they are unable to sustain any meaningul level of life on their own, so we have to feed them even more. Idiotic. Time to let nature take it`s course.

I think you've missed the point about vaccinating.

There isn't any point in just vaccinating one group of people. The entire species has to be vaccinated in order for diseases to be wiped out. Smallpox was wiped out that way and there are quite a few other diseases that can be eradicated. That won't happen unless people who are 'far too stupid' including westerners who refuse vaccinations are covered.

Leaving one group uncovered, especially the poor, increases the risk of having the disease mutate into something that isn't covered by vaccination or is more difficult to treat. Just take a look at what happened with tuberculosis for instance.

[Daniel]

Ok I agree with Dylan now :p

[driveace]

the problem here is the amount that we are prepared to give in aid.we can give aid ,BUT why such a massive amount more than other nations?
With plenty of problems in the UK,we really should be sorting things out here,or people paying an extra amount of VAT,and other taxes,will feel that giving large amounts of aid to these countrys,is giving away moneys that we cannot afford to.

[Rudy Tamasz]

As harsh as it seems, I agree with you.

When money isn't misappropriated, it is usually used to artificially maintain people in a state of poverty, usually in a Country that is incapable of sustaining them without long term aid.

In effect, aid maintains and increases poverty where fate and Mother Nature is seeking to find a sustainable equilibrium.

I happen to work in the aid industry and I can tell you from experience you're less than correct. Aid is not maintaining people in the state of poverty because aid is not just giving them food, blankets, basic medicines and lets them survive them one more day and reproduce one more time.

The goal of aid is to help developing and transitional societies reach the level of sustainability where they will be able to resolve their issues themselves. Aid programs normally include the components of economic growth, governance reform, healthcare and social services that reinforce each other. I.e. when an aid agency works on health reform it aims to facilitate the establishment of a reasonably funded healthcare system capable of providing quality services to population and maintaining public health on a decent level. I.e. aid is not just buying fish to people. It's helping them with buying a fishing rod, showing how to use it and making sure you know to to cook fish properly. In the country where I work we reduces the number of children in institutions and curbed the incidence of some infectious diseases. How about that?

Speaking of why you have to fund it, it's because in this globalized world if do not stop diseases and poverty in Africa, you'll find it knocking at your door in Europe. Already has.

[555-04Q2]

I happen to work in the aid industry and I can tell you from experience you're less than correct. Aid is not maintaining people in the state of poverty because aid is not just giving them food, blankets, basic medicines and lets them survive them one more day and reproduce one more time.

The goal of aid is to help developing and transitional societies reach the level of sustainability where they will be able to resolve their issues themselves. Aid programs normally include the components of economic growth, governance reform, healthcare and social services that reinforce each other. I.e. when an aid agency works on health reform it aims to facilitate the establishment of a reasonably funded healthcare system capable of providing quality services to population and maintaining public health on a decent level. I.e. aid is not just buying fish to people. It's helping them with buying a fishing rod, showing how to use it and making sure you know to to cook fish properly. In the country where I work we reduces the number of children in institutions and curbed the incidence of some infectious diseases. How about that?

Speaking of why you have to fund it, it's because in this globalized world if do not stop diseases and poverty in Africa, you'll find it knocking at your door in Europe. Already has.

:erm: No Rudy, you are very mistaken. Most of the time the aid does nothing more than prolong the suffering of the people in question and they still stand with their bowls in their hands after the aid has run out.

And sadly, most of the time the fishing rods arrive missing half the parts.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Hey 555, I know some aid operations are utter failure. But in many other cases it still works.

And then, what else do you do to people with bowls? What are the options?

[555-04Q2]

Hey 555, I know some aid operations are utter failure. But in many other cases it still works.

And then, what else do you do to people with bowls? What are the options?

Well I am yet to see an aid operation that actually changes peoples lives in the long run. I used to be a member of the Lions Club International and the charity drives for "needy families" we used to do did not change their situation one bit. After the aid runs out they are right back where they started looking for the next handout. Its the same with my many business dealings with aid operators/funders in the past. Aid is a quick fix and not a solution.

To answer your question, if you take their bowls away they are forced to do something for themselves. Sad, but true.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Well I am yet to see an aid operation that actually changes peoples lives in the long run. I used to be a member of the Lions Club International and the charity drives for "needy families" we used to do did not change their situation one bit. After the aid runs out they are right back where they started looking for the next handout. Its the same with my many business dealings with aid operators/funders in the past. Aid is a quick fix and not a solution.


Here we go. Aid is not charity. These two are different things. Charity is a one-off thing. It's like feeding a stray dog. Aid is about producing systemic change. It is about training bowl holders to generate their own income.


To answer your question, if you take their bowls away they are forced to do something for themselves...

...which is crime, begging etc. Reproducing, too, by the way. Reproducing never stops, full bowls or empty bowls. Will you be happy with it?

My solution is to help them return their dignity and show them how to fill these bowls themselves. Of course, aid providers have to be convincing enough to get the message through, and that does not happen sometimes. It still does not discredit the idea, though.

[555-04Q2]

Here we go. Aid is not charity. These two are different things. Charity is a one-off thing. It's like feeding a stray dog. Aid is about producing systemic change. It is about training bowl holders to generate their own income.



...which is crime, begging etc. Reproducing, too, by the way. Reproducing never stops, full bowls or empty bowls. Will you be happy with it?

My solution is to help them return their dignity and show them how to fill these bowls themselves. Of course, aid providers have to be convincing enough to get the message through, and that does not happen sometimes. It still does not discredit the idea, though.

I have worked with both charity and aid operators and they are one and the same. There is no difference except the name and aid operators are generally better funded. To quote, "whats in a name?"

As for taking the bowl away, no lazy person is going to fill their own bowl when they can sit on their backsides and wait for the next person to come along and fill it for them. Take the bowl away and they have do something about it. Aid has been devastating in most parts of the African continent and made peoples lifes worse. As I said, I am yet to see any improvement from aid operators where I have been involved.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Okay, I see where you are coming from and I am sure you have facts to prove your point. Let us politely agree to disagree then.

[555-04Q2]

Okay, I see where you are coming from and I am sure you have facts to prove your point. Let us politely agree to disagree then.

We can agree :) You are not totally wrong though and neither am I totaly right. Aid is a great idea when you look at disasters where tsunami's, earthquakes etc have devastated communities, countries etc. Aid does work in most of those situations. But it does not uplift a nation or a people that have no inclination to do something for themselves. Sadly, I have only ever been involved in the latter, and this is where most of the worlds aid money goes to, which, is ultimately wasted.

[Malbec]

the problem here is the amount that we are prepared to give in aid.we can give aid ,BUT why such a massive amount more than other nations?
With plenty of problems in the UK,we really should be sorting things out here,or people paying an extra amount of VAT,and other taxes,will feel that giving large amounts of aid to these countrys,is giving away moneys that we cannot afford to.

The pharmaceutical industry in the UK is one of the biggest industrial sectors and is one of the biggest corporate tax contributers to British coffers.

It is a sector that is in decline. It is also a sector that is therefore looking to downsize and shift operations to cheaper countries as soon as possible. Britain stands to lose a lot of money as pharmaceutical companies start to leave the UK. Pfizer shutting down its sizeable operations in Sandwich are merely a taster of things to come.

One of the pharm CEOs a few months back claimed he was 'disgusted' with banks threatening to move overseas and that they should be good corporate citizens by paying full British corporate tax. Why do you think he said that for if he wasn't angling for something from the British government.

Britain contributing so much money to this vaccination project is only one facet of an operation to support the pharmaceutical industry in the UK. As with F1 the old adage applies, always follow the money. The primary intent of all this aid isn't to help foreigners, its to help Britain.

[Malbec]

Well I am yet to see an aid operation that actually changes peoples lives in the long run.

How about the Marshall plan then? I think that worked quite well changing peoples lives where it was applied.

Aid to SE and Far East Asia also worked very well in raising living standards and turning many countries around. Its worked so well most countries there aren't aid recipients any more.

The whole point of aid that works is that eventually it makes itself redundant as the recipient country improves to a point where it doesn't need it anymore. Hence we're only left with countries where aid hasn't worked.

[555-04Q2]

How about the Marshall plan then? I think that worked quite well changing peoples lives where it was applied.

Aid to SE and Far East Asia also worked very well in raising living standards and turning many countries around. Its worked so well most countries there aren't aid recipients any more.

The whole point of aid that works is that eventually it makes itself redundant as the recipient country improves to a point where it doesn't need it anymore. Hence we're only left with countries where aid hasn't worked.

I'm not familiar with the Marshall plan. Good to hear there are some success stories. Sadly, it don't work in Africa :(

[CarlMetro]

I happen to work in the aid industry and I can tell you from experience you're less than correct. Aid is not maintaining people in the state of poverty because aid is not just giving them food, blankets, basic medicines and lets them survive them one more day and reproduce one more time.

The goal of aid is to help developing and transitional societies reach the level of sustainability where they will be able to resolve their issues themselves. Aid programs normally include the components of economic growth, governance reform, healthcare and social services that reinforce each other. I.e. when an aid agency works on health reform it aims to facilitate the establishment of a reasonably funded healthcare system capable of providing quality services to population and maintaining public health on a decent level. I.e. aid is not just buying fish to people. It's helping them with buying a fishing rod, showing how to use it and making sure you know to to cook fish properly. In the country where I work we reduces the number of children in institutions and curbed the incidence of some infectious diseases. How about that?

Speaking of why you have to fund it, it's because in this globalized world if do not stop diseases and poverty in Africa, you'll find it knocking at your door in Europe. Already has.

My whole reason for posting this thread was not to highlight the fact that money was needed to pay for the vaccines needed nor the fact that the veccines were needed in the first place. My first issue is the simple fact that the Uk as a whole is on it's knees and fast aproaching a double-dip recession and yet somewhere down the back of the sofa we managed to find £814 million to give away. My second issue is that our contribution is so disproportionate when compared to other leading economies, many of whom are a darn sight stronger than we currently are.

I have no doubt that giving aid to those who need it works, although not always the way we think it does, but I'm a firm believer of the 'charity begins at home' way of thinking and was outraged when the story was announced.

[Malbec]

My second issue is that our contribution is so disproportionate when compared to other leading economies, many of whom are a darn sight stronger than we currently are.

Its not disproportionate at all when you consider the relative importance of the pharmaceutical industry to the UK. Quite reasonable in fact.