By Abhijit Pandya

Last updated at 5:33 PM on 6th October 2011

The aid expenditure shows no concern for the millions in the UK who are struggling with rising living costs, including food and energy bills.

It also shows the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party is completely out of touch with not only the reality of the harm of international aid, but also the plight of people in the UK at present.

Despite knowledge of the latter the Prime Minister is spending greater money each year, including a staggering 14 billion by the General Election, on international development aid.

David Cameron chats to a mother as he tours a vaccine and immunisation clinic paid for by the British Government in Lagos, Nigeria

David Cameron chats to a mother as he tours a vaccine and immunisation clinic paid for by the British Government in Lagos, Nigeria

This is hard earned British taxpayers money going down the pan to increase poverty and economic harm in Africa, and other parts of the world.

Of course not all of it is going down the pan. Not quite. Moyo, in her seminal book Dead Aid, highlights that over 50% of this money of British tax-payers will end up the bank accounts of corrupt bureaucrats, in banks that are not even in the country where aid is supposed to go to.

The reason for this is quite simple. Developing countries do not have the administrative infrastructure to allocate this money, nor the accountability mechanisms that can oversee that this money is going to the right places.

Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative International Development Secretary recently speaking at a London Conservative Association, was not aware of how the money would be monitored to reach its intended recipients, so that they, rather than corrupt bureaucrats could waste it. This caused a few jaws in the audience to drop.

Caught out: International development secretary Andrew Mitchell was not aware of how the money would be monitored to reach its intended recipients

Caught out: International development secretary Andrew Mitchell was not aware of how money would be monitored to reach its intended recipients

One old lady screaming 'This country comes first!' was met by an arrogant patronising smile of disapproval by Mitchell.

He then went on to make an absurd argument that demonstrates the complete lack of detailed  and considered thought in relation to aid policy: that the Government would reduce immigration by spending more money overseas.

'Why can't we simply spend more money to control our borders?' another said. Mitchell kindly ignored this question.

Lord Heseltine recently echoed this intellectual vacuousity on Question Time, when asked why we were giving aid money to India that had a space programme, whilst we couldn't afford one.

He said we owed it to them for colonising them. This was spoken not so long after the Indian Billionaire Mittal bought the English football team, QPR. One often wonders whether the nuts have taken over the nut house.

That, on any reading, this statement could be perversely construed as a justification is mind-boggling.

Further, it doesn't taken into consideration that is it extremely unlikely that there is a single living tax-payer that has been involved in giving any country the benefits of British colonisation so that aid from their taxes might be even justified.

One wonders what planet Lord Heseltine, from whom Cameron regularly takes advice, is on.

The only real way to assist a developing country is to build profit making economic relationships.

This is by entering into investment and trade agreements with states that reduce tariffs so that business can cross borders and be secure on the ground.

Odd: Lord Heseltine was asked why we were giving aid money to India that had a space programme, whilst the UK can't afford one

Odd: Lord Heseltine was asked why we were giving aid money to India that had a space programme, whilst the UK can't afford one

Instead of wasting public money on aid, Cameron could re-work some British investment protection agreements (termed 'IPPAs') that are outdated and could be modified to assist in exporting technology for profit. This would help also our economy and assist British business.

The Chinese government is miles ahead in being involved in the bulk of useful infrastructure building in Africa that both aids the Chinese economy in terms of revenue and provides work for thousands of Chinese workers.

This could be done by Britain, with a greater local empowerment of skills, to assist the developing country. Old commonwealth ties could be used to make money, rather than have, without probity, public money thrown into personal private coffers due to colonial guilt.

Chinese foreign direct investment in Africa goes on whilst we lose out and simply throw money at corrupt African administrations. We fail to build the important trade relationships that allow us to do this, primarily due to our obsession with the Eurozone.

Save the Children claim that more than eight million children are starving because of the global economic crisis

Save the Children claim that more than eight million children are starving because of the global economic crisis

Cameron is, perhaps, doing this because he believes that there is some absurd middle ground full of Blairite voters that want to feel good about helping Africa. Maybe he is doing it because he is just plain evil, and wants another century of poverty in Africa.

It is by no means clear, but spending billions of taxpayer's money without knowing aid kills is surely a sign of negligence, if not ineptitude?

This international aid expenditure is clear abdication of responsibility for our own country and for the poorest in the world by Cameron, who is clearly culpable for pulling the wool over peoples eyes.

His constant, irritatingly malingering, empty appeals to the heart belie a want of reason and foresight about national interest and open his administration open to questions regarding the calibre of its policy-making.

People who clapped this expenditure at the Conservative conference are encouraging a crime on the developing world, whose scale of damage to the world's poorest thus far should never be forgiven.


Read Abhijit Pandya's RightMinds blog here

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

Whilst the population is allowed to increase, the problems will never go away, surely it is time to be cruel to be kind? Some how, stop babies being produced until such time they can feed them. I am uncomfortable with enforced contraception (via the food we pay for?) but some positive action is required. What we pay from the UK to deal with the symptoms, are doing NOTHING to tackle the problem itself - too many people, ferocious weather, not enough food.

if we paid our top politicians a good wage we might get someone who can do the job not failed barristers and petty expense fiddlers their is something very wrong when a council leader gets paid more than our top politician

"The study found that procurement procedures decide which private firms from which countries receive aid-funded contracts. These conditions, in turn, determine who reaps the benefits of creation of decent jobs and income." from the Times Group 13 September 2011. So who reaps the benefits in this country? I wonder which of our firms benefit and who they know? Time to check the emails?

If the money went on birth control so these countries didnot over populate it would be money well spent instead of in the pocketst of the corupt officials

If Dave followed his Big Society idea through, he would channel the money through Save The Children, Oxfam, Cafod who do aid sensibly. Or doesn't he think that charities can do a good job?

Proof, if any were needed, that the Conservative party is at one with and the same as the Labour party and the LibDems. A one party state with the illusion of choice and difference. Highly dangerous Frankfurt-school Marxists the lot of them. Remember what they do with OUR money when the next election comes.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.