It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.
Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.
As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?
If the other 99.5% of the budget was being spent on things as worthwhile as polio eradication I don't think there would be as many complaints.
67.1m kids vaccinated. 11.3m kids on primary/secondary education. Family planning to 9.9m women 30m kids and pregnant women through nutrition programmes 13.4m given emergency food assistance etc...
It's all on devtracker if you want to look. Way more transparent than any other department i think.
Would be interesting to know what fraction of the budget those stats correspond to.
Will not be a big proportion for sure. I would bet more is wasted than does good.
It is unclear whether ITV would risk falling foul of strict rules on broadcasters' impartiality by going ahead with a debate without the Prime Minister.
Seems harsh - they offered her a platform if she wished, and she declined. She gets her message across to the voters just like the others, only her message is 'I do not wish to take part in a TV debate', and people may make of that what they will.
Comments