PM Makes Promise To Vaccinate World's Poor

I strongly disagree with being told to tighten my belt and pull up my bootstraps by a prime minister who's just announced that 814m is now going abroad.
UK is gutting 2.4% of spending. Overseas aid is 0.7%.

This money is going to directly help millions of people alive who would otherwise die very soon.

I'm sure you can cope with dropping a brand level on a couple of food items from your weekly shop (which is, in effect, the amount it will cost per person in a year).

Jus' saying.
 
Waste of money IMO. As others have said, there just isn't a decent enough/civilized enough infrastructure to sustain the population there. I know I'm gonna sound stupid but why can't they just stop having sex so much?

High infant mortality rates
More kids = More workers

Personally I think aid should be given to develop infrastructure in these countries so they become more self sufficient.
 
Its due to the pull backs in funding over the last 20 years in vaccinations which have thwarted the serious efforts of the world health organisation to orchestrate the extinction of serious disease's. Polio SHOULD have been the first to be made officially extinct but due to a massive decline in vaccinations for it over the entire last generation of people, infection rates are on the rise. If you completely eradicate a disease, you not only give people in third world countries a real fighting chance for survival and ensure their friendship in future trade agreements for valuable assets which fall within their borders, you also save the tax payer vaccination costs long term due to not having to immunise for specific diseases. This is the ultimate goal of world wide vaccination plans.

The guinea worm which is a nematode worm parasite is next to be made extinct due to the proper implimentation of strict vaccination and treatment plans with seriously effective surveylance globally of the disease. Money well spent.
 
I thought Labour had left us in such an "awful mess" that there was literally no money left? Amazing how we can find a spare £800m down the back of the sofa, especially when it'll help the PM get a lucrative job at some international quango a la Tony Blair when he quits politics.
 
This kind of annoys me (Just like when we gave X amount of millions to Pakistan not long ago, which REALLY pee'd me off), We as a country are knackered and on our bottom and people are losing jobs and there livelyhoods left right and centre, then we go and do stuff like this? I say forget other countries until we are back in the red and not in the black.
 
UK is gutting 2.4% of spending. Overseas aid is 0.7%.

This money is going to directly help millions of people alive who would otherwise die very soon.

I'm sure you can cope with dropping a brand level on a couple of food items from your weekly shop (which is, in effect, the amount it will cost per person in a year).

Jus' saying.

Why should we though? Not our country and not our problem! We need to sort out our problems first then think about others.
 
Seems like a good, efficient, high profile use of 2 days worth of state borrowing at current levels...

If only we could get such value for money from our public spending back in the UK.
 
What I don't get it why we are giving so much compared to others. According to Newsnight last night, we're giving around £800m while other countries like the France and Germany are only giving tens of millions. After watching Poor Kids last week I can't help thinking this money could be better spent in the UK.
 
There is all ways an ulterior motive with these things.

Maybe it's to reduce the chances of our own being affected?
Maybe it's to insure these countries are able to grow and allow more wealth?

Personally I just don't think he's doing this out of good will...
 
There is all ways an ulterior motive with these things.

Maybe it's to reduce the chances of our own being affected?
Maybe it's to insure these countries are able to grow and allow more wealth?

Personally I just don't think he's doing this out of good will...

You're assuming that the ulterior motive is to benefit this country, and not the person behind the initiative.
 
You're assuming that the ulterior motive is to benefit this country, and not the person behind the initiative.

So how would it benefit him specifically?

Doesn't seem to be doing his image any good judging by general comments from the British public.

He's governing a country, ofcourse it's to benefit the country that he governs... In one way or another.
 
So how would it benefit him specifically?

Doesn't seem to be doing his image any good judging by general comments from the British public.

He's governing a country, ofcourse it's to benefit the country that he governs... In one way or another.
It's not really too hard or far fetched to see is it? PM gives money to pharmaceutical companies, PM gets job post term in a highly paid advisory role, a seat on the board, something like that. Why would he give a **** what the British public think if it serves his financial and career interests?
 
So how would it benefit him specifically?

Doesn't seem to be doing his image any good judging by general comments from the British public.

He's governing a country, ofcourse it's to benefit the country that he governs... In one way or another.

Gets him in Bill Gates' good books for one, possibly lining up a job on the Microsoft board after he quits politics, or one of many other possibilities that a man like Gates will be in a position to influence. This is how you get jobs like Middle-East Peace Envoy (lol), certainly not by being the best candidate for the position.
 
It's not really too hard or far fetched to see is it? PM gives money to pharmaceutical companies, PM gets job post term in a highly paid advisory role, a seat on the board, something like that. Why would he give a **** what the British public think if it serves his financial and career interests?

I can't really say for him. :p

But I'm coming in at an angle that will benefit a multiple of people not just him.

I highly doubt he would want to be a board member of a pharmecutical company though but remember, I'm just speculating as much as you guys are.

Overall I'm unsure which is why I said maybe with regards to my points.
 
Gets him in Bill Gates' good books for one, possibly lining up a job on the Microsoft board after he quits politics, or one of many other possibilities that a man like Gates will be in a position to influence. This is how you get jobs like Middle-East Peace Envoy (lol), certainly not by being the best candidate for the position.

Thought he had retired as CEO? :p

But you're right that it will influence many things and perhaps his career will see benefit from this but what if it is a bad investment and it flops? The risk he's taking is huge risk with a lot of money and it will have been decided by a lot of people I imagine.

Who knows, I'm not in the cabinet. ;)
 
Why should we though? Not our country and not our problem! We need to sort out our problems first then think about others.
Where do borders begin and end? Where do the borders end at the point where we say "No, we won't contribute a small amount of money to save millions of people and ultimately improve the world for many future generations be eradicating a particular disease".

England? The UK? Europe?
 
But you're right that it will influence many things and perhaps his career will see benefit from this but what if it is a bad investment and it flops? The risk he's taking is huge risk with a lot of money and it will have been decided by a lot of people I imagine.

Which would be fine, if he were doing it with his own money - but he's not, he's doing it with ours.
 
I have an idea: how about the corrupt governments in said African countries pull their head out of their bum, stop diverting all the countries economical gains to war, and start helping their own people?

It is scandalous that so much money is given to countries to "save their people" when the root problems are left unfixed.

I also find all of the bleeding heart arguments, like: "People are driving around in porsches blahdey blah" equally as irritating. The money we make is what we have earnt, we should get the choice where we spend it, and should not have to divert such enormous (almost a billion quid, wtf) funds into saving children in third-world countries, when that money could be pumped into suffering schools and hospitals here.

In 10 years we will be having this exact same problem, unless third-world governments start getting their arse in gear. Yes, it's a horrible world we live in where children are starving and daying of easily preventable diseases each day, but that is also generally in places with massive overpopulation problems and an almost non-existant infrastructure to support them... what will happen once all these hundreds and hundreds of thousands of children are "saved"... the economy magically be rejuvenated? Nope, just hundreds and hundreds of thousands more on the breadline living in poverty.

There is no nicey nice way to cover this issue imo... it's one of those dividing topics that will have both sides up in arms. Personally I don't think it's right that we put the weight of the worlds problems on the UK taxpayers shoulders, when there are problems to address at home. Giving money to third-world countries is like p***ing in the wind.
 
There is no nicey nice way to cover this issue imo... it's one of those dividing topics that will have both sides up in arms. Personally I don't think it's right that we put the weight of the worlds problems on the UK taxpayers shoulders, when there are problems to address at home. Giving money to third-world countries is like p***ing in the wind.

I think this particular initiative is somewhat different as it is spefically targetted and involves no money going to the corrupt governments. I personally find it very hard to begrudge these kids a chance at life regardless of the underlying poltical positions of the countries they live in.

It saddens me somewhat that some people in here seem to be against this not because of what is being done but because of who is doing it.
 
I think this particular initiative is somewhat different as it is spefically targetted and involves no money going to the corrupt governments. I personally find it very hard to begrudge these kids a chance at life regardless of the underlying poltical positions of the countries they live in.

It saddens me somewhat that some people in here seem to be against this not because of what is being done but because of who is doing it.

Couldn't care less who is doing it but we are just being stupid. The world is going to end up with a huge issue of famine, lack of water and a population that cannot be sustained.

There is a damned good reason that the power in the world doesn't sit in africa. There is a good reason we don't live at the north or south pole. These places can support a small population but the populations have exploded.

At some point I really hope that someone has the balls to stand up and say that we cannot just reproduce as much as we like and someone else will sort out the consequences. We are going to have overpopulation issues soon enough in this country and we have a good climate to grow food and gather water.

Its just human arrogance that we think anything is ours to bend to our will. Oh we are saving the children; brilliant, so then those children will reproduce very soon and their population will expand and need more money and more support.
 
Back
Top Bottom