Small sums still too much when wasting our money abroad

WELL, once again we are treated to a fine example of Mickey Mouse economics.

John Blakey apparently defends the amount Britain gives in foreign aid in his letter (Yorkshire Post, February 22), saying that foreign aid is only 0.7 per cent of GDP and likens such a ‘small’ sum to moaning about spending 70p out of a sum of £100.

This entirely misses the point. It is not about meaningless percentages but about plain hard cash, huge amounts of cash which should not be disguised by quoting silly percentages.

Can Britain not find better ways of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the essential requirements of her own people rather than giving it to India and China, both of whom have their own space programmes, and then continuing the farce by stuffing ever more money into the bank accounts of despot dictators in other countries? It may only be 0.7 per cent of GDP but why this is forwarded as an excuse is impossible to understand, it’s still wasting horrendous amounts of money.

But, if John Blakey and others still feel such small amounts of money, such chicken feed is not worthy of criticism, then perhaps I could benefit from such warped reasoning. If everyone in Britain could see their way to giving me a measly 10 pence I would be a multi-millionaire, and surely no one would even miss a paltry 10 pence.

So, why don’t they? Because it’s not right, that’s why, and other people are more deserving of it and should be given it.

From: Bob Simons, Rowborn Drive, Oughtibridge, Sheffield.

I SEE that David Cameron has taken it upon himself to tell the insurance companies to get their collective fingers out in dealing with claims from victims of the recent floods; it’s a pity that the Prime Minister couldn’t manage to get his own finger out quite a bit earlier and show more urgency in dealing with this terrible crisis.

From: Terry Duncan, Greame Road, Bridlington, East Yorkshire.

IT is an indictment on our Westminster rulers that in the 21st century the number of food banks are increasing, meaning the number of poor are increasing, while, it seems, the Government is led by many millionaires.

From: Michael Benfield, Farsley.

I FIND it frankly disgusting that the country’s banks have yet to offer their hefty bonuses to fund the flood relief. Perhaps if they did this, then the taxpayer-funded politicians, stood there like wallies in their wellies, would not have to spend their precious time helping with the local efforts when they should be chasing down benefit fraudsters and health tourists to make them help with the floods.

From: Eileen Fergusson, Moortown, Leeds.

MAY I point out a printing error in your article “Farage to face Clegg in EU membership debate” (Yorkshire Post, February 22). It states Downing Street said David Cameron was too busy running the country.

Surely this should read Downing Street said David Cameron was too busy ruining the country?

From: ME Wright, Grove Road, Harrogate.

CAN it really be that in the 21st Century, the assumed Mother of Parliaments is still infested and infected with the worst examples of the English “public school mafia?”

Alas, yes; the loutishness and misogyny of them and their less privileged “wannabes” are beyond the control of ineffectual Speaker, John Bercow (Tom Richmond, Yorkshire Post, January 22).

Perhaps luring former Speaker Betty Boothroyd back from the Lords would help – combined with diluting the gin in Westminster’s numerous subsidised bars?

From: G Wright, Fieldside Court, Tadcaster.

LABOUR’S Rachel Reeves adds her name to the list of those with similar exhortations that “we need to make sure we have decent and secure jobs”. Unfortunately she fails, as do others, to specify just who the “we” are or should be. Providing such jobs from money raised from taxpayers is no problem, but in the private sector, life is not so simple.

Could one suggest that Ms Reeves and others, who feel passionately about creating well paid, secure employment, take out a bank loan or re-mortgage their properties and set up companies to employ lots of people with the wages and security she considers desirable?

If she doesn’t or can’t, who does she think will?