Overseas Aid - again!

Yesterday, I gave you my views on how we could expand the aid budget to include our own people. But now I hear from the Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, that aid for Afghanistan is to be increased by 40%

"What!", I hear you say. "The aid budget is ring fenced."

Well, apparently in true political style we can get around that by redefining things.

It seems the total is ring fenced, but we can 'reprioritise' the order in which we give out the aid, presumably drawing a line when the money runs out?

Now don't get me wrong. If the increase in aid to Afghanistan means that we get the country in order more quickly and our troops come home sooner, then that's fair enough.

What I don't go along with is the principal that we can now apparently cut stuff off the bottom of the list to make room for this, but if we weren't doing this, then they would have stayed on the list. This makes no sense.

Why don't we just look at what we can afford - which, let's face it is sod all - and then take the things off the list that can be taken off and use the money to provide essential services for our own people and to pay off our debts?

I suggest,  Messrs. Cleggeron, that you read this and yesterday's posts....