Foreign aid given as UK manufactured goods instead of cash

Rufus20

0.7% of the UKs gross national income is spent on foreign aid. Instead of giving cash to corrupt governments why not send goods manufactured in the UK?

This way money could be put back into the UK economy, supporting UK industry and creating new jobs!

The people who need the aid would actually receive it as items they needed like food and blankets. Please sign the petition and make a difference!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48370

System

I thought the point of aid was to build up developing countries to give them a proper infrastructure e.g. roads, hospitals, schools. I don't think much(if any) of the money actually goes to buy people food.

bod1467

Signed. This is actually a reasonable idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. But if nobody tried things like this then we may as well all curl up and die.

ILW

We mainly sell weapons to these countries already.

Valli

ILW wrote: »

We mainly sell weapons to these countries already.

So they need the cash to buy the weapons.

There OP - flaw spotted for you! Happy to help!

battleborn

We shouldnt give any money away while our own country is struggling.

I think countries like India should pay us money.

browneyedbazzi

battleborn wrote: »

I think countries like India should pay us money.

I'm curious...why do you think India should pay the UK?

redmike123

We gave India hundreds of millions in Aid last year and they went and bought French aircraft !!

Arthurian

Surely this is how foreign aid works already? Isn't it already sent in the form of earthmoving equipment, etc? Hence JCB, a major Conservative party donor at the last election, has record profits from exports to developing countries. That's the only reason I can think of why 'we' promised to increase the amount spent on foreign aid.

Ectophile

I can see two problems with sending the goods.

1. You risk damaging what local economy there is, rather than helping it. For example, if you send free blankets to an area with lots of refugees, then any local people who make or sell blankets for a living will find themselves unemployed. If you send the money, then the aid agencies can spend the money locally, kick-starting the economy.

2. It can be an excuse for British companies to dump any old tat that they want to get rid of, and the government can claim it's aid.

System

Ectophile wrote: »

I can see two problems with sending the goods.

1. You risk damaging what local economy there is, rather than helping it. For example, if you send free blankets to an area with lots of refugees, then any local people who make or sell blankets for a living will find themselves unemployed. If you send the money, then the aid agencies can spend the money locally, kick-starting the economy.

2. It can be an excuse for British companies to dump any old tat that they want to get rid of, and the government can claim it's aid.

I read in northern rails magazine that they had changed all their uniforms. They had sent all there old uniforms to Africa. For some reason I picture a small African village where all the inhabitants are dressed up as northern rail ticket inspectors