British overseas aid - Money well spent ?

A few years ago I asked why it was that we are giving £825 million in aid to India.

Today we read that India is to spend more double the amount we give them in aid on a space programme to put Indian astronauts in to space.

Is it really a good use of our money in these hard times to gives British taxpayers money to fund projects in India when the Indian government seem to think that a space programme is more important ?

Does British foreign policy support too many dictatorships ?

In the wake of the cyclone in Burma it was being reported the other day that Britain will be sending a donation to support efforts in the country. Of course this is the right thing to do. But I was a little shocked to hear that Britain is a long term donor to Burma and has been for some years.

When you take in to account that we send millions each year to Zimbabwe, it makes you wonder how many other dictators are sustained and aided by the the British taxpayer.

Some will argue that the aid the UK sends keeps people from starving, and it is hard to argue with that, but you could also make the point that the UK aid enables ruthless dictators to get away with what they do because they are subsidised by the UK.

Shouldn't British foreign aid be linked to supporting democracies ?

Why are we giving £825 million to India ?

Here is some warped logic for you. India, which by some measures is now the fourth largest economy in the world, is going to be given £825 million in aid by Britain, which by the same measure is the 7th largest economy in the world.

The next time someone asks why they have to wait for an operation, why they can't get a certain drug on the NHS, why there are no police in their street, why their village cannot get a bypass, indeed, why we in the UK have to wait for anything when the country pays £825 million to India, I would refer them to the ballot box.