There has been a sensible debate on the issue this morning on BBC Radio Leeds with the warning to set aside the issue of how the message was delivered and just concentrate on the issue - the issue being two fold, should we donate billions to regimes who's leaders pocket a percentage of it for their personal use, and should we be donating billions at all when there are a hundred and one other causes that the money could be used for in the UK ?

The consensus among the chattering ferret huggers was that yes, a debate is required at the least as to why the foreign aid budget is ringfenced in this current period of budget slashing to the point of destruction of services, and I think they have a point.

There were interviews with various aid agencies who pointed out the obvious, that some of them do do good work with the poor and starving but of course none of them had any experience of how much is wasted on bribes or skimming, and they also pointed out that any country who contributes to foreign aid is, remarkably by coincidence, also likely to be top of a list of suppliers to major projects in those very same aided countries, so if you bung a dictator £1b to help him build a dam then he'll probably award the dam project to a business based in yoru country - and then go on holiday to his new flat in Knightsbridge.

When it comes to knee-jerking, I think Godfrey Bloom is a stand-out champion at that sport.

Your link was to the Mail Online ... do you possibly have a more reliable source?
You know, one that can compare what proportion of foreign aid is spent well against what is wasted or misappropriated?
Or is the idea that because foreign aid all goes to foreigners it is therefore all wasted?

"Ferret huggers"? ... whooo-hooo, aren't you the bold outspoken one?

Isn't foreign aid just state sponsored bribery? Isn't that why it's budget is protected?

This would be my main concern, as to whether it is mostly a taxpayer-funded way of helping private companies profit. Or a subsidy, as it's otherwise known.

And I don't think it simply applies to dictatorships.

Unfortunately, the OP, in his initial post, suggested that he was hoping less to have a discussion on those lines and more to see what sort of a wind-up he could get going.

Yeah, humanitarian aid, disaster emergency relief such as helping refugees and tornado victims, water supply and sanitation, poverty reduction, fighting child-trafficking etc etc ... it's all just bribery.

In 1970, the UN agreed to target a minimum of 0.7% of GDP that donor nations would each provide.
The UK has reached that target, as have many others.
Some exceed it, e.g. Sweden and Norway (1% or more) and even Luxembourg (0.99%).
The UK comes 6th.

One could point out that, in many developing-world countries, where clean water (to pick up one of your examples) is a massive issue and where aid can help, governments are being pressured by the likes of the World Bank and the IMF to privatise such facilities. So it could be said that aid intended for such an aim can and does end up as private profit.

EVEN Luxembourg! Is that the Luxembourg the country with the highest per capita GDP in the world? The one with per capita GDP 2 to 3 times that of the UK?

OK, cross out the word "even".

WTF.

Wonder if he is related to a blue rinse racist I once did a job for, who said 'there are too many Fuzzy Wuzzies in Britain'

The poor chap will have a coronary if we ever get Chuka Umunna as PM.

UKIP seems to be the preferred destination of right wing Tories who refuse to pretend they have changed.

The way I see it, if the intended recipients of overseas aid only receive 50% (or whatever the actual figure is) of the money after backhanders and whatnot, cutting the overall figure will serve only to ensure that they receive even less.

There's obviously a problem with corruption in certain regimes, and this must be addressed via other means. Cutting aid isn't the answer.

Good to see everyone falling for the Tory smear campaign on UKIP, via its friends in the media.

As reported in the weekend's Sunday Times, the Tories are to launch an "under the radar" attack on UKIP by looking into all their councillors, etc, etc to dig the dirt. Well the have certainly been acting as planned - and under the radar - no one seems to be associating this with Tory HQ. This is why the Tories will win the next election - they are too clever for the other parties. Once they subtley marginalise UKIP they're home and dry given the inepitude of their traditional opposition.

The obvious and clear defence for UKIP to avoid and counteract those smear tactics would be to not have representatives who are closet, and not so closet, racists.

Its not like the victor meldrew lookalike hid his leanings. He revelled in his offence for a while, at least until someone had a little word in his ear.