Muammar Al Khadafi

The worlds population will hit 7 billion in the next few days - up from 6 billion just 12 years ago. We'll hit 8 billion people by 2025, if not much sooner.

Full Story - Daily Mail

Looking at the Mails graphics, there could well be an interesting point here.

2011, worlds most populous countries = China, India, USA, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria.

All bar the USA are current recipients of Foreign Aid in one form or another (China's bilateral aid program from the DFID closed in 2011, but it is likely aid in one shape or another continues).

For 2025, most populous nations are predicted to be - India, China, Nigeria, USA, Indonesia, Bangladesh.

All again, barring USA (and China if we do not continue aid in one form or another) are major recipients of UK foreign aid.

Nigeria, despite our declining fortunes at home, we've earmarked £215million per year until 2015. The same figure is true for Bangladesh.

India will be getting £280million a year until 2015.

China is, without doubt, doing better than us in the economy stakes, India with its own space program appears to be doing far better also - it's not our fault if their governments fail to pass those benefits on to their people.

Interestingly for Indonesia, we're told that "Indonesia has made bold commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emission by 41% by 2020, is highly vulnerable to climate change impact and is a key player on international climate change negotiations".

Good luck with that in the light of an ever increasing population.

The United Nations report into increasing world populations state that "Another two billion people may be added to the world population by mid-century, many of them in places where hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation are already taking a high toll".

You can read into that the fact that we will be paying to support this huge population increase.

Improve health, lavish fortunes on foreign countries who cannot sustain their existing populations, and you create a recipe for unsustainable population growth and an ever increasing dependence on foreign aid.

Something has to give somewhere along the line, and the disaster when it does come will be truly catastrophic.

We do many nations, and the world as a whole, no favours by fuelling their increasing populations.

It's rare we've much good to say about ConDem, but never let it be said we're reluctant to do so when they've genuinely earned it.

In the light of recently released figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showing a disastrous rise in unemployment, any scheme which will create new jobs has to be welcomed.

God knows we need all the jobs we can get.

This new initiative will deliver job opportunities to 50 deprived and marginalised inner city areas.

Not only this, but the taxpayer will "provide grants to firms that seek to develop innovative products and services for export, helping to create more jobs and build a stronger economy"

Excellent news there, hat tip to the government for once.

Surely there can't be anything negative to say about this, can there?

Well, the fact that this new jobs creation scheme and grants to companies is to take place in the Caribbean might mute our praise a little.

That's right though, as Britain suffers its worse unemployment levels in decades, Development Minister Alan Duncan has swanned off to Jamaica for 3 days to pledge our help in solving their economic problems.

"A tough economic climate combined with high levels of violent crime are among the Caribbean’s biggest challenges and to help tackle this we are significantly increasing the resources that we will allocate to the region" said Duncan.

Earlier in the year, Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell announced that we were allocating £75million for the Caribbean.

Perhaps we spoke too soon in congratulating the government. It's typical ConDem, and Labour are no different, worrying about the worlds problems and spending our money trying to fix them whilst Britain itself slides into the abyss.

If only the politicians spent their time - and our money - worrying about us then our country might not be in such a mess.

Does foreign aid encourage immigration to the UK?

It's a good question which arose as part of an online discussion I was involved in a few days back, and my opinion is in the affirmative, it does.

If we begin at our most simple, nameless village in nameless country, life there is pretty poor in fairness, most people are occupied with the day to day business of securing enough resources - food, money, water, medicine, clothes etc - to make it through to the next day.

They may look out for their immediate neighbours, it would be in their interest to do so if this were reciprocal, or they may give a damn about only their immediate family. Fact is, they have little, who can blame them either way.

Mostly, they know their government does little for them, they know that luxury is confined to a handful at the top, they'll be last in the line for their nations money.

Then, along comes Joey English from the West with his entourage. He's in his nice car, nice clothes, toting all kinds of high tech gizmos, and he's going to spend - figure out of the air - £10million on improving your local community.

£10 million! That's a baffling figure to most of us in the West, we can't really comprehend it, we're never going to have it, how much more so if you're in a country where your weekly income might be £10.

You see a foreigner - an outsider - willing to shower an unimaginable sum of money on you and your town/village, someone who will take care of you and improve your life.

Now, you're from a poor and impoverished region, your concern is - as said earlier - keeping your immediate family alive, and perhaps immediate neighbours, you have nothing left over to do otherwise. You - and who wouldn't - care about improving the lot of your nearest and dearest.

But this Joey English, wow, he doesn't have to worry about things like that. He has such a huge surplus of resources that he can afford to take care of you, thousands of miles away and nothing to do with him whatsoever.

What's the obvious message you could read into that?

It's simple, and that is that Joey English is from a land of plenty. Joey English has huge amounts of resources to spare, he's a nice guy, he wants to take care of us and devote those extra resources to us.

It's obvious Joey English has ample spare resources and money - how else could he afford to spend it on us?

Now, one could wait on Joey English to improve local life, which may take decades, or one could - and who could blame anyone for doing it - seek out the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the land of plenty from which Joey English hails.

Stands to reason it is a land of plenty, it has to be if they can afford to spend all this money on us, their people must live in luxury. And, they care about us, else why would they spend this money on us.

It's a simple logic, if we could get there our lives would improve no end. If Joey English has money to spare in, for sake of argument, our homeland of Africa, how much more must there be to spare in England? The streets must truly be paved with gold.

England has wealth to spare, people who will fund improving our lives - whether it's a selfish decision based on the idea that something such as this should be exploited, or a perfectly understandable decision of wanting better, it's certainly a logical decision.

Get to the UK. Any nation which can spend unimaginable sums on improving our lives here must truly be a bounteous nation, they have wealth aplenty to spare.

So, yes, I'd argue that foreign aid would act as a billboard advertising the UK as an excellent destination for immigration, and I'd not blame the immigrants either.

They're just chasing the pot of gold which our own actions tell them is to be found here, and, once they make it to the UK, who is to blame them for thinking that Britain is the place that will always give?

Britain is to give £20 million to the Carter Center to contribute to the eradication of Guinea Worm, a parasitic infection which causes deblitating symptoms.

The parasite, which is contracted by drinking water contaminated with the worms larvae, infected 1,797 people in 2010, all of them in Africa.

Now, assuming cases stay fairly constant over the 4 year period, and basing on the DFID's assertion that there were 1,797 cases worldwide in 2010, we arrive at 7,188 cases over 4 years. Of course, assuming reducing Guinea Worm is successful there would be far less, but we'll use that as a starting point.

With £20 million of your money going in the kitty, that's us stumping up about £2,782 per case.

Is it a horrid disease? Undoubtedly, although rarely fatal it does cause pain and can leave people bed-ridden for months at a time. Certainly sounds unpleasant, and wouldn't wish it on anyone.

However, with our own NHS crumbling - we're seeing many reports of rationing by stealth in a bid to save money - and just today we see a case in York where GP's at a practice in York have written to patients needing minor surgery telling them that the NHS will no longer fund the ops, it's go private or make do, we surely have better things to spend our money on combatting a largely non fatal disease in Africa.

Harsh as it may sound, where is the sense in cutting back our medical facilities at home - and many suspect that more and more 'minor' ailments will end up added to the list of things it's pay to go private or put up with - due to lack of money, yet stumping up a fortune to improve health abroad.

£20 million may be a drop in the ocean compared to the £20 billion in cost cutting being forced on the NHS, but £20 million could still pay for a lot of operations needed by those living in Britain.

How many of those operations - for ailments which may be considered minor, but quite possibly are not so to the poor person suffering from them - which cost a few hundred pounds but are now not to be funded by the NHS in some areas could have been treated with that £20 million?

The National Lottery, as we're always told, funds numerous good causes. We quite often hear of some odd and obscure ones in there, like teaching Peruvians to dance or funding support groups for Yemenis who've lost their yaks, but it's interesting to take a look at the amount of money going abroad.

£5,168,087 to University College London - Institute of Child Health for projects that "focus on mother and child health. The Institute of Child Health (ICH) at University College London (UCL) and its partner, Women and Children First (WCF), are currently running community based projects in Bangladesh and India".

£5,110,820 went to Helpage International for "nine projects, of which there are seven standalone projects that focus on HIV/AIDS in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa and Ethiopia. They will cohesively filter into project one for local, regional and global advocacy for all regions and project nine for dissemination of best practice".

CARE International UK will "work hard to reach mobile populations who are more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Projects will include improving access to HIV prevention, care and support, setting up a Regional Research Centre, enhancing the capacity of government, civil society and community efforts to reduce the vulnerability of mobile populations and their families to HIV and to mitigate the impact of AIDS. Mobile populations include women and men who move to India in search of work" and got £5,102,419 towards that.

£3,792,311 was awarded to Skillshare International who are "Working in Swaziland, Mozambique, Lesotho, Botswana and South Africa, this project addresses the current gaps in implementation of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Plan of Action for HIV/AIDS, targeting the most vulnerable people and areas within the action plan".

And, we could go on forever here, but this is the last example we'll give, £2,878,088 to enable Interact Worldwide to "contribute principally to improved mother and child health but also to improved measures to tackle HIV/AIDS by contributing to improving maternal and neonatal health in highly underserved areas of Sub Saharan Africa. It will aim to close the gap between the community and the healthcare system. This portfolio consists of three new projects which will focus on mother and newborn health in Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda"

That's just the top 5 foreign project recipients from a glance at the figures provided by lottery.culture.gov.uk - it should be noted that there are a whole lot more foreign projects, and that these donations stretch back over many years.

Taking a look at the National Lottery page today, we're tod that the next Lotto jackpot on Wednesday will be an estimated £2,200,000.

With a quick total of the above 5 figures for foreign projects lottery money went to, we end up with £22,051,725.

It's a rollover! Just those 5 'good causes' ate up ten times more money than the current jackpot is.

As if we're not paying out enough in foreign aid already, and many give generously to all kinds of charitable groups, if we take a look overall, searching foreign projects on the culture.gov.uk site tells us that there have been 1131 grants to projects they class as 'Overseas' for a total of.....£244,074,737.

That's a whole lot of rollovers to get there, we really could say that foreign nations have won Britains National Lottery, and won it many times over.

As cutbacks bite, the cost of everything increases - it seems hardly a day goes by when we don't notice some essential foodstuff has gone up a few pence, or stayed the same price but decreased in size/weight - charity Fareshare, which distributes surpluses from the food industry, is reporting a sharp rise in demand.

From its food reaching 29,000 people a day in 2010, the figure has now climbed to 35,000 a day currently.

Despite the increasing demand, a sure sign that poverty is a rising blight in the UK, Fareshare reports that one in three charities it surveyed are facing government funding cuts.

Based on responses from organisations supplied by Fareshare, 65% are cutting their food budgets in an effort to stay afloat.

It's the inevitable result of a stagnant economy, rising prices, and a government which insists it will not balance the books off the backs of the worlds poorest people - yet seems to think balancing them off the backs of Britains poorest is perfectly acceptable.

The cost of living is much higher, a daily reality for many people in the UK is the fight just to get by, a choice of what to go without today. Hunger is becoming an increasing factor in so called first world Britain.

Remember old Band Aid song, Feed the World? Seems we can't even feed Britain, we're busy trying to feed the world whilst more and more people at home are being forced to rely on charities in order to eat.

Surely something is seriously amiss there, we've got something wrong if the Department for International Development can gloat that, for example, they provided "Food aid for 1.36 million people" in Ethiopia, paid for by you, whilst charities such as Fareshare are providing 8.6 million meals and rising every year for people in the UK.

We feed the world, and those in charge are oblivious to the rising hunger at home.

Hunger will, once again, become the daily companion of many Brits as prices continue to rise far beyond incomes, and government does nothing save for preach the need for cutbacks at home whilst trying to feed the rest of the world.

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell is poised to tell the Conservative conference that it is our patriotic duty to continue spending huge amounts on foreign aid, and that it would be wrong for us to balance the books off the back of the worlds poorest people.

Pulling out all the usual chestnuts, we should be proud, it's our responsibility, throw in a few children suffering as a good hook to appeal to the emotions, and blame terrorism on poverty.

Of course, who'd have thought that fanatics in Somalia only turned to that because Britain failed to give them enough money!

How about Mr Mitchell agrees to take only 1/4 of his MP/Minister wages, and to fund his own expenses, with the remainder going to these countries who it is apparently patriotic to help.

It's very easy pontificating about the need to send money to nearly every nation on earth, about how it would be wrong to balance the books off the backs of the poor, when it is someone elses money.

Set an example Andrew, you believe it then set Britain an example, live by it, make some cutbacks of your own, it's unfair you receive all that money whilst vulnerable people in other countries suffer.

We've everything being cut back here, you may well scream that it's unfair to balance the books off the back of some of the worlds poorest and most vulnerable people, but you sure seem to have little compunction about balancing them off the backs of Britains poorest and most vulnerable.

Just recently a case local to Somerset showed a meeting and resource centre for OAP's being forced to close its doors due to council funding cutbacks - for want of what, in the scale of foreign aid, is a trivial amount in the region of £80,000.

We're seeing all across the country the need for foodbanks increasing in order to avert starvation, how many pensioners will freeze this winter due to high power bills and official indifference?

That's who you're balancing the books off the back of.

You've a very misguided idea of patriotism if you think that is acceptable, that patriotism consists of playing benefactor to the world whilst our own nation and people suffer.

Pontificating about foreign aid is easy - because it's not the likes of Mitchell, his relatives, or people he knows who are suffering here in Britain. He's sure not going to face a choice of whether to heat or to eat this winter.

Yes, there are problems in the world, and we've failed to fix them by showering money on other nations over the years. We've proven by our actions that foreign aid is a failure.

But, there are more problems at home. Our money should go on our people, only once we are a utopia where nobody suffers due to lack of funding should we even consider cash for abroad.

Mr Mitchell way well defend foreign aid, he and so many other have a vested interest, but what we really should be standing for is British Aid - there are far too many people in Britain shoved aside, forgotten, and seemingly of no interest to officialdom. They need our aid.

Aren't those lives what really should be most important to us, wouldn't true patriotism be to see that none of these people - our people - have to suffer?

Harriet Harman has demanded that foreign aid spending continue to rise, despite the fact that we are facing mammoth cutbacks to our services at home.

Speaking at Labours Liverpool conference, Harman told listeners that it was harder to make the case for foreign aid in the light of the governments austerity drive but that we should still continue shelling out money abroad.

"...we must not make the world's poorest pay the price of a global financial crisis, precipitated by the greed and irresponsibility of the world's banking system" she said.

The average British taxpayer didn't get rich out of the "greedy and irresponsible" banking system either, but we're sure paying the price, and having to pay for foreign aid as well.

"And we should also pay tribute, too, to the massive support that comes from the communities of African origin in this country who are working hard here and sending money back home" Harman also said, surely informing us plainly that one effect of the multicultural society is that money is sent abroad and lost to the British economy.

The whole speech is a paean of praise for foreign aid, the great wonders it is working, and how we should spend more on it, accompanied by the odd - surely sexist - dig that a male development team can't empower "women and girls in the developing world".

Foreign aid fails, just ask the likes of Imran Khan, perhaps you should have invited him along to the conference to offer his opinion Harriet. Wait, he's not a woman, maybe it was a woman only shortlist to attend?

Sorry Harriet, we've heard it all before, and it's all the erroneous babble of the do gooder, or those with a vested interest in funnelling vast amounts of British money abroad.

By spending billions we compound problems, such as unsustainable population growth in lands which do not even have the resources to support their current populations, fuel corruption, and remove incentive for these countries to do a thing about fixing their own problems.

Our money is squandered, we throw it into a bottomless pit annually, the demands of foreign aid will never end, and seemingly - despite ploughing billions into some countries over the years - they still need more.

As a final word from Harriet, "But when people are dying unnecessarily and - we can help – that is what we must do".

We can agree on that, although of course not how Harriet intended - whilst one pensioner goes hungry in Britain, or dies of cold in winter, whilst one Brit suffers due to lack of medical care, whilst one British life can be saved were that money spent at home, that is what we must do, here at home is where we must spend our money.

Foreign aid fuels corruption - that's the conclusion of Pakistani politician and former cricketer Imran Khan, who has called on the UK to cut aid to his country.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4, Khan said that very little of the vast sums of aid money sent to Pakistani was actually reaching its target, and that aid money serves to prop up corrupt governments.

Reform, not aid, is what Pakistan truly needs, and in a telling statement Khan said "If we don't have aid we will be forced to make reforms and stand on our own feet".

Indeed so, we've said it many times, foreign aid is a barrier to countries solving their own problems to any reform which they may need, it actively discourages long term solutions instead creating a reliance upon short term fixes in the form of Western aid.

If we pay for the problems of the world, if corrupt leaders know that the money from the west will keep on flowing just so long as they have problems, then what incentive is there for change?

In contrast to Khan's insightful comments, and plea with the UK to stop foreign aid to Pakistan, the UK will actually be increasing foreign aid to the country.

Instead of the £140.4million annually we give them now, ConDem will be increasing it £350million annually for the next 4 years.

Strange situation. At a time of cutbacks at home, we can afford to more than double our aid to Pakistan, a country where even one of its leading opposition politicians says our aid does little good and indeed does harm, and spend well over £1billion there over 4 years.

Pakistan, like so many other countries, would be better off without our showering them with vast sums of taxpayers money, even some within those countries are waking up to the fact.

Our aid fuels corruption, and removes much of the incentive for these nations to change themselves for the better and improve the lot of their people.

Foreign aid, set to drastically increase to a total of over £11 billion per year whilst ConDem are in power, represents not only an intolerable burden on the British taxpayer, but also a disaster for many recipient countries.

Britain should have better things to spend our money on - better for us, and better for them.

As Britains educational standards decline, budgets are cut, and children are facing a shortage of schools due to a population which is spiralling out of control, government is finally going to do something about improving schooling.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said proudly of the scheme, The Girls Education Challenge, that "The action we are taking is ambitious and something of which Britain should be enormously proud".

£355million is to be made available for the initiative up til 2015, and it is projected that it will provide education for up to one million young girls.

The only problem?

The project is taking place in Africa and Asia, aimed primarily at priority countries such as Nigeria, Bangladesh, and South Sudan. Nobody in government ever calls Britain a priority when it comes to spending our money.

As an interesting aside, we're told educating them will lower birth rates - perhaps we should try that in Britain too?

We'll not be improving Britains situation, our schools will still labour under the cutbacks imposed by ConDem, we'll still have a shortfall in places, and we'll still have educational standards that have fallen off the chart.

Britain, once again, plays benefactor to the world whilst ignoring our own problems and letting our country slide ever downhill.

That's something to be proud of?

Benefit claimants who cannot afford food will be referred to charity food banks by Job Centres as poverty in Britain continues to increase.

The scheme, which brings to mind startling images of soup kitchens and the great depression, will see the Trussell Trust dealing with referred benefits claimants, who can get food for three days.

Demand on the Trussell Trust, a Christian charity, is increasing at an alarming rate - it currently operates 70 food banks, and is set to open another 60 food banks over the next 6 months.

It is estimated that they will provide food for somewhere in the region of 100,000 people this year.

Poverty UK, where people must rely on charity in order to eat, it's a damning indictment of societies failings when these conditions can exist in modern Britain, and the government does nothing save for refer people to charity.

100,000 people reliant on charity to eat within Britain really is a terrible statistic, what a ruined nation we have become. With our ever growing population it will only get worse as well.

Is that the Big Society in action, where government knows there's a big problem but it's not their problem, charities can pick up the pieces of our ruined nation?

Meanwhile though, providing food for abroad, paid for using taxpayer money, appears to be no problem.

Just one recent post on the Department for International Development website tells us that we're providing food for 1.36 million people in Ethiopia, 800,000 in Somalia, and hundreds of thousands more people in Kenya.

We've people going hungry and reliant on charity in the UK, and the numbers are increasing - yet, the UK taxpayer is paying for millions of people abroad to eat.

Does that make sense?

Hunger at home, food for abroad, is that a pledge any party would campaign on?

They ought to, because that's the reality of the Britain around us today, feeding the world but failing our own people.

Poverty and hunger is fast becoming a feature of modern Britain, and yet the politicians eyes - and our money - are elsewhere.

Whilst people in Britain go hungry and are saved from starvation only by the intervention of charity it is clear that we have got our priorities completely wrong, and that there is something fundamentally broken with us as a nation and a society.

South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane chartered a £20,000 private flight after rowing with officials in Norway at Gardermoen International Airport.

The cause of the row?

Officials wanted to x-ray her handbag, but Nkoana-Mashabane objected, argued, and claimed that she had diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention.

Under the EU legislation which Norway is actually signed up to, only royalty and heads of state are exempted from security checks.

One might wonder if it was a principled stand or whether she had something to hide, but that's a matter for personal speculation.

Instead of submitting to having her bag x-rayed, she returned to the Hotel Grand in Oslo and arranged for a private plane to take her on to Bulgaria.

By doing so she avoided the need for her bag to be x-rayed, instead departing from the VIP terminal.

The cost to South African taxpayers was £20,100.

Later, an official from Nkoana-Mashabane's department commented on Twitter that "Africans (should not) stop demanding equal treatment and the enforcement of international laws and principles" according to the Telegraph.

Of course, the race card again, who can honestly say that they are shocked?

One thing worth noting is that, despite South Africa's apparently impoverished status which means they receive foreign aid from the UK taxpayer amounting to £19 million a year until 2015 (they received £40.6 million in 2008/09), there seems to be plenty of money for private planes for officials so that they can avoid security checks at airports.

Make of that what you will.

With the support of the 3 main political parties, new gay rights movement The Kaleidoscope International Diversity Trust has launched - with the aim of improving gay rights around the world.

Cited among the nations with major issues on their treatment of gays are Uganda and Nigeria, both of whom are large recipients of foreign aid (£98million and £250million a year respectively according to the DFID).

Now, how about something simple if the 3 main parties are serious about doing something for gay rights around the world.

Foreign aid ought to be stopped altogether, but while it isn't and the money is still flowing to many of these nations, is it really too simple to say "unless you change this, the money stops"?

If they are desperate for our money they will change things, if they are not then so be it, they can do as they wish but without hundreds of millions in funding from the UK.

That way not only are we not funding countries who - by the admission of our own authorities - are unsafe to send homosexuals back to, we may also actually improve things there and not end up paying at both ends of the scale when we fund both the country and the immigrants who fetch up here and whom we can't send back.

True, this wouldn't be applicable to all countries, but every country who receives foreign aid could have 'equality' imposed upon them - or forego foreign aid, their choice.

We've no qualms about using law and fear to force so called equality on to the people of our own nation, why should we think twice about doing it to other countries?

After all, we're quite happy to bomb some countries into submission in the name of democracy, we shouldn't bat an eyelid at the idea that we might look around and say to other countries "fine, but if you want our money then here are the conditions".

We should be stopping foreign aid across the board, have no doubts about that, but whilst we continue paying it out then why shouldn't we attach conditions to it.

It's the British taxpayers money, why on earth we are paying it out to support regimes whom we all know are distinctly dubious and doing so with no strings attached is beyond most of our understanding.

The big three parties, who make such a big deal about equalities and rights, actually all ensure that those who violate those rights which are apparently sacred will be rewarded with large sums of money, just so long as they happen to be a foreign nation.

In a society led by politicians who claim to be devoted to bringing rights to all, and to fixing the problems of the world, it is worthwhile reflecting on the fact that their actions regarding foreign aid do nothing of the sort, and actually perpetuate the denial of the rights which they supposedly support to people in many other nations on the planet.

There's an interesting story in the Telegraph concerning the drop in the number of referrals made by GP's - down 4.7% on this period in 2010.

Here's the Telegraph story instead of a rehash - Click Here

It raises a few interesting questions.

We have a population which is increasing drastically, so how at the same time can hospital referrals fall?

The only possible answers are that the health of the nation is improving, which seems unlikely since we're day in and day out hearing of increasing health threats and incidents of illness, or that there is a rationing by stealth taking place.

Given ConDems imposed cutbacks, is it likely that this is in fact a money saving measure, and, in some instances, are patients who may well have been referred before now being denied that?

There are numerous reports of health authorities tightening up referral criteria, so this seems likely.

Cases which once would have been referred we're now told by the Department of Health are being treated in more "appropriate circumstances".

That has the aroma of bureaucratic doublespeak for cheaper circumstances to be honest.

With the British Medical Association (BMA), and the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) raising concerns, it's certainly likely that something is going on, and it is not something in the interests of the patient.

The most obvious question of all has to be why we are cutting back the NHS budget when the population of this country is increasing and thus demand will increase.

The two are incompatible with one another, it is a simple fact that an increasing population produces increasing demand on the NHS.

We would - and should - save money by dealing with an increasing population which has its roots entirely in immigration, but we do nothing about that.

Nor do we do anything about largely imported demands on the NHS such as Tuberculosis, HIV, and Hepatitis.

Instead ConDem attempt to pinch money wherever they can, and insist that less resources can deliver the same quality of care to more people. They can't and they won't.

As well as this, we insist there is less money for the NHS, and yet there is more money for foreign aid.

The whole thing is fundamentally flawed. Less spending on health, due to an alleged lack of money which we all know is really more down to a misapplication of money, and an increasing population, can only result in rationing of one sort or another.

Get used to it, we'll play benefactor to the world, and the cutbacks will be made at home. More people, less resources, we're heading downhill fast.

As Britain continues to plough billions into overseas aid and funding medical care for foreigners, St Mary's hospital in Paddington faces closure as managers at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust consider drastic measures to try and cut the trusts £100million of debt.

A number of architects have been asked to give quotes for turning St Marys into 3,000 flats.

Given the rapidly shifting demographics in London - aka colonisation - want to take a bet on who will end up in many of those flats should the plans go ahead?

As a whole the NHS faces cutting £20billion from its budget over a four year period - whilst, at the same time, we'll be spending well in excess of that on foreign aid.

Much in the NHS may need reforming, not helped by the insanely corrupt and burdensome Private Finance Initiative, but it is simply absurd that our NHS faces closures whilst we can find huge amounts to spend on foreign aid.

Day after day we hand out money abroad like it is going out of fashion, and then see our own hospitals close because of debts.

Our population is growing rapidly, and looks set to continue to do so, yet we're going to end up with less hospitals who have less money to spend.

There is just no way that quality of care cannot suffer, and that hospital waiting lists won't end up growing.

Just how that can be in Britains interest is anyones guess.

Full Story - Independent

Fresh from the realms of you couldn't make it up comes news that around 4,200 nurses and midwives have left the UK - to go and work in foreign hospitals.



The exodus comes as many leave ahead of ConDem taking an axe to the NHS, and head for sunny climes such as Australia or the Middle East.



What's so bizarre about the whole situation?



Back in January of this year we had David Nicholson, NHS Chief Executive, warn that the UK was facing a shortfall of 4,500 midwives.



We also learned that British aid money is being used to fund the training of new midwives in numerous countries, including Ethiopia, Kenya, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and India.



The situation is ludicrous.



We're losing midwives and nurses as they flee abroad ahead of the heavy round of job losses which will be inflicted on the NHS due to ConDems austerity measures - there isn't enough money it seems.



We're already short of midwives as it is, this can only make the entire situation worse.



And, to top it all off, we're funding the training of midwives in multiple countries. There is plenty of money for that it seems.



Britain is short of midwives, is losing midwives due to a supposed lack of money, and is busy funding midwives for nearly everyone else on the planet.



Anyone else notice the insanity and contradictions there?



We in Britain are left watching as our essential services crumble, and the politicians who should be maintaining them hand over huge amounts of our money to foreign nations.



First World Britain and every third world nation on earth will meet in standards at some point - in the middle as our standards decline whilst we spend all our money on improving their standards.

Dr Unni Karunakara, international president of Médecins Sans Frontières, has said of Somalia that "We may have to live with the reality that we may never be able to reach the communities most in need of help" and that "....glossing over the man-made causes of hunger and starvation in the region and the great difficulties in addressing them will not help resolve the crisis".



There's a truth there, although not quite in the way Dr Karunakara intended it no doubt.



Our whole aid industry is one of those man made causes of hunger and starvation. It may fill bellies today, but it ensures that tomorrow there will be even more bellies needing filling.



What have we got to show for decades of foreign aid, charity, famine relief, the whole caboodle?



Every year or two we get the 'worse disaster in recent years'. It's regular as clockwork, every couple years the problem is back and is worse than ever. These regions are always hovering on the bring of catastrophe.



We've just made it bigger, that's all, and bigger isn't better when there were never enough resources or infrastructure to begin with.



It has been said before that we'd be better off giving the third world condoms instead of food - there's a truth in there. True, they can't eat them, but if the population ceased to grow at least the food that there is would have to feed less mouths.



Of course, the most likely net result would be local marketplaces having stalls piled high with Durex featherlite and ribbed ticklers rather than making any meaningful impact on population control.



Big families are an ingrained cultural trait, until that changes then the problems only get worse.



We've the vicious circle of big families, and Western aid ensuring that more people survive to reach childbearing age, who in turn have big families.



That cannot carry on indefinitely, something has to give. The West cannot reach, nor support, an ever growing number of people.



Even if we do reach them all then what about tomorrow? The underlying causes have in no way been fixed, all we do is delay the inevitable and make sure that it will be worse when it does finally happen.



It is a bottomless pit and it always will be. More food + more medicine = more people = even more food + even more medicine = well, you get the picture.



Were a nation that otherwise supported itself to fall victim to a drought or famine and require short term, one off assistance, then there may well be good argument for rendering that help.



When they are falling victim to those disasters every year or two and requiring massive assistance each time, indeed requiring aid every year just to function, then it is a clear signal that our assistance is for naught.



Our continual aid and charity solves nothing, it just continues to perpetuate - and to make worse - the whole set of underlying problems which these nations face.



As unpleasant a truth as it may be, there is a finite limit to how many people a given region can support. We may be able to push past that limit for a while, but we cannot do so forever, and we cannot keep pushing further and further past that limit without disastrous consequences.



Populations cannot grow indefinitely, and we cannot continue to feed ever growing populations in multiple countries - sooner or later there are just too many people and the whole system collapses under the weight of mouths clamouring to be fed.



The consequences of our assistance, which has allowed these problems to assume such gigantic proportions, will be suffering for the people of the third world on an unprecedented scale.

Our own troops may be under equipped with many high profile stories detailing how soldiers have been forced to buy their own kit, or sent into warzones without the essential gear they need, but thanks to the generosity of the Ministry of Defence the Ugandan army have body armour and helmets.



It may not make sense to you or me, or to our own brave soldiers struggling with cutbacks, but the MoD shelled out a hefty £1.7million last year on providing the Ugandans with body armour.



Some gift, a gift you and I have paid for, whilst our own troops want for the equipment they need to survive and function in warzones which they should never have been deployed in to begin with.



Uganda is a rather large beneficiary of UK aid as well - the Department for International development tells us that our spend there until 2015 will average £98million a year.



All this despite Ugandas nightmarish track record on human rights, and with numerous reports of political opposition supporters and politicians being persecuted, as well as track record on the treatment of homosexuals which means we are very unlikely to deport any Ugandan homosexuals who wind up in the UK due to their risk of torture or persecution.



Yet, still we're stumping up money in the form of foreign aid and helping to equip their military in the form of gifts from the MoD.



Those deciding how Britains money is spent really must be some of the most gullible people on earth, shelling out our cash on a regime like that and helping to ensure that it continues in power.



Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to witness the cutbacks at home in the UK, and the shortages faced by our soldiers, and yet at the same time see how we've money to spend on Uganda and the Ugandan army?

Britain is to give £3million to Libya in order to provide food and medical assistance in the aftermath of the bombing campaign and so called Arab Spring uprising which was heavily supported by Western interests.



The DFID tells us that "Britain will provide urgent humanitarian support including medical help, food and other basic supplies for thousands of people affected by the conflict in Libya, International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell announced today."



Hurrah, good old British taxpayer, paying the price again, Mr Mitchell is awfully generous with our money.



On the same day the BBC tells us that "Billions of pounds of Libyan assets - including £12bn in London alone - have been frozen in recent months to prevent them being used by the Gaddafi regime. The US won approval to release $1.5bn (£920m) last week."



Of course they'll cite all sorts of legal and political reasons why that can't be done, but the simple fact is this :



Why on earth should the British taxpayer be left picking up the bill for this uprising, and then trying to clean up the aftermath with copious amounts of foreign aid, when there are huge amounts of assets which belong to Libya sitting frozen?



There are £billions in frozen assets - apparently we have enough control over those assets to freeze or unfreeze them at our leisure.



Would we have unfrozen these assets and handed them back to the Libyan people, err sorry elite, if Gaddafi emerged a clear winner? Of course not.



So, now that it looks like he has been ousted, despite all the political pundits who will say this is too simple, that we've no right to do it and so on, why can we not allocate some proportion of those funds for certain things in Libya - eg the doctors and food the DFID now announce - rather than leaving the British taxpayer on the hook?



Yes, you can have your money back, here it is, but X amount will pay for this, and that, and we're taking some back to cover the multi million £pound cost of the war (may as well call it how it is) which we have just fought on your behalf.



If the Libyan people were so desperate for 'freedom' and 'regime change' then they should consider it a price well paid. After all, Gaddafi would only have used that money to support his personal luxury and oppress his people if you believe everything we're told by officialdom and the media.



Is that too simple?



Of course it is for the politicians and bankers, they want the good old British taxpayer to pick up both sides of the costs, war and peace, we pay for both.



Profits for a few, costs for the rest - that's always the way, and it's not you, me, or the rest of the average British people getting to enjoy the profits.



We should never have been involved in the first place, but it is distinctly unfair that the British taxpayer is now left holding the bill in every way possible.



*Thanks to SL for suggesting the theme, "Why when Libya has money is Britain paying out foreign aid to them".

"A technical fault is affecting DFID's telephone system.



If you are a journalist and would like to speak to a member of DFID's press office, please call one of the following numbers:



07970 212 XXX

07827 881 XXX

07971 533 XXX

07775 406 XXX



If you are not a member of the press, please contact the public enquiry point on 0845 300 XXXX or visit the Contact Us page for more ways to get in touch: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Contact-us/"



(Click the image, it's the Department for International Development (DFID) posting that as an update. They don't do many updates lately - amazing they've not much to say despite that huge budget and all the countries they spend our money in)



But, scrub that last paragraph.



If you are a member of the public, a taxpayer, a voter, concerned at how ConDem have pledged your money to increasing foreign aid year on year, or at how Labour too would throw your money away, don't bother contacting us about that.



All of the big three parties will continue to spend your money in every nation on earth, and all you'll get at home is cutbacks and some smug politician telling you how you've helped some of the worlds poorest people - some of whom can afford space programmes for example.



There's definitely a technical fault, only it goes a bit deeper than just a problem with the telephone system, it's a far bigger fault than that.



There is most assuredly a major technical fault somewhere along the line when we're spending an ever increasing fortune on foreign aid, but we're getting told that there is no money left for Britain.



At least repairing the telephone lines at the DFID will be easier than repairing our foreign aid insanity, those phone engineers do a better job of fixing things than our politicians do.