project week task - UK's foreign aid spending

Project week task – ChiShan Lo

For my project, I have decided to concentrate on the controversy behind the UK’s vast funding of foreign aid to other countries and the arguments it has created politically within Britain.

I have found three different sources of information concerning this topic of discussion:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/william-hague/10138113/Foreign-aid-is-an-investment-in-our-future.html - The Telegraph ‘Foreign aid is an investment in our future’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343683/Britains-foreign-aid-madness-Cuts-home-STILL-hand-G8-country.html - The Daily Mail ‘Britain's foreign aid madness: Cuts at home, but we STILL hand out more than every other G8 country’

http://britishpatriotssociety.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69:the-arguments-against-foreign-aid&catid=36:our-articles&Itemid=53 – British Patriots Society ‘The arguments against foreign aid’

Key differences – The article printed by the Telegraph online strongly supports the supply of foreign aid. It then argues further to support the decision of increasing the supply to 0.7% of national income to the world’s third world countries. By firstly introducing his argument with the fact that ‘a child is vaccinated against deadly disease every two seconds thanks to Britain’s efforts’ Mitchell uses positive effects of foreign aid to lay out the foundations of his argument that foreign aid is actually being put to practical use. He then uses examples to show how UK taxpayers also benefit hugely from giving aid. Mitchell emphasises that foreign aid is key in the development of Great Britain and that ‘investment’ is ‘sought to generate a return for Britain’.

The Daily Mail uses a more negative approach is the increase of foreign aid that was promised by David Cameron. By labelling the situation a ‘foreign aid madness’ and using phrases such as ‘cash-strapped’ and ‘soft touch’, the headline of the article immediately presents its views in very few words.  By comparing the UK to other (richer) countries, and comparing figures of aid, Chapman is able to convey the image of Great Britain spending money it doesn’t have, especially during times of austerity.

My third source, although bound to be very biased conveys an even stronger argument on why foreign aid is a problem for citizens. Using images to convey the prime minister as taking away valuable tax money, the use of propaganda immediately sways certain viewers, especially those who would typically visit the ‘British Patriots Society’. By using arguments coming from both the political right and left, the BPS is able to convey their argument from different perspectives of politics and society, useful in helping them gain more supporters from a wider audience.

All the sources I have used seem to collectively be very one-sided. Andrew Mitchell, is a former international development secretary who throughout his article, stresses the importance of giving aid to foreign countries.  The Daily Mail article uses sources from various political figures who actively disagree with the increase of foreign aid spending. The majority of the article is made up of quotations from various sources, however all with the same point of view, making the article seem less objective. The views put forward by the BPS only display their own party’s point of view and uses simple language and quick points to convey their argument. With no other supporting sources, this article would not be considered balanced at all.

I believe that my findings have helped me understand the issue of foreign aid spending more than before, as I never believed it was an issue that was ever present within the UK government. Although I have come to a conclusion that aid to indeed a helpful factor for Great Britain as well as others, the articles I looked at made me question whether, during our economic climate if the percentage going outwards should be as high as it is. I would think that more information on previous years of aid and the visible impact it has made worldwide, would make this argument more useful.