Overseas Aid

You could easily say the same about any group though Al….a few more million and we can cure cancer…a bit more investment and we can crack cheap hydrogen production, end our fossil-fuel dependancy, and save the planet…just a bit more govt funding and we can ease the plight of underpaid binmen in Scunthorpe…etc, etc.

There will always be things that people think deserve additional priority and, surely, for the best of reasons. Thing is that, in the main, those other elements have funding to some degree. By discontinuing the aid effort, in many places, the only tangible element of UK involvement would be ceased and, as noted earlier, that robs us of any kind voice in issues we want to have a voice in.

As I said initially maybe there are cases, in the budget, where our national interest isnt that great and they can be cut, but, you are only looking at perhaps a few hundred million a year in savings…is that enough to make a significant impact, nationally, in geriatric care…somehow I doubt it.

Al, I couldn’t agree more, this is one of the things I was thinking about when I Posted this question.;)

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Why we support these foreign nations, and yet abandon our own elderly is beyond me. All those millions given to countries, which are just as likely to turn around and bite us, could be better invested in government-run care homes for the generations who have worked, fought, and payed taxes in the UK…

Unless I have misunderstood I thought he was saying the opposite….

I see Dr Liam Fox has started spouting on about resuming the cash give away… Talk about being out of touch with the UK public.

Look at the sums involved though Paul. These aren’t amounts sufficient to let el Presidente sit back on his **** casually offing political opponents while he lets the gullible British fix all his countries ills are they?.

If you actually look at the work being done in Pakistan UK payments are even backloaded to reward success…to help incentivise the locals towards doing things the way that we want them done.

That being the quite huge element you are missing by the way…the fact that what is of principle concern to us (radicalised young males straight out of Madrassa’s in the Pakistan example) may not be of equal concern to them. Adding a wedge of cash into the mix is a very time honoured way of seeing issues pushed up the governmental ‘to do’ list.

I have always thought that the so called overseas aid never reaches the people it is mean’t to help.
Money should never be sent to countries that have dictators,wealth of their own in natural resources they could use .
Charity begins at home but even then i would be careful where it goes.

Jonesy This says it better than me(no sod it)
If Countries keep handing out aid where is the incentive for anyone to do anything about improving their own situation. I don’t count migrating here as a valid way of improving their situation either.

UK First in everything sod the rest.

So, by spending the relatively piffling sum of £140mn, we help young lads in Pakistan stay out of the Madrassa’s and away from radical Islam. In security terms would you say that suits our interests?

Or we spend what we spend in India and help cement a return many times greater, to the UK economy. Does that not qualify as UK first…certainly we are benefiting from it?.

Sodding the rest usually means being ignorant of events and, therefore, having no opportunity to influence them. A very poor position from which to exercise ‘soft’ power as the new paradigm is meant to be!

My policy would be simple, as long as you have any UK citizens living destitute on the streets of this Country under cardboard sheets, the money should go there first, I do not give a squat about educating some Indian Kid when their own Country is spending Billions on Defence and Space programmes, instead of on its people.

We could all do that, but that’s unacceptable as you would all agree.

UK First in everything sod the rest.

I wonder if any of OUR M.Ps, have taken a backhander to Lobby a certain subject/ project, in Westminster?.
No, we are as white as white could be…. Pardon the pun.:rolleyes:
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Simple in theory but not in practice. A proportion of rough sleepers do it out of choice. Others are there because they have opted out of the system or are not within it legally.

I believe that genuine aid for genuine need crosses borders and states. But I agree that these days it is probably impossible to bypass malpractice and corruption in its delivery.

My policy would be simple, as long as you have any UK citizens living destitute on the streets of this Country under cardboard sheets, the money should go there first, I do not give a squat about educating some Indian Kid when their own Country is spending Billions on Defence and Space programmes, instead of on its people.

We could all do that, but that’s unacceptable as you would all agree.

But what Warren do WE get from these Countries, in return?.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

That’s what creates the problem. Aid should be given. Period. If you give money for something in return then that’s buying a favour, of influence, or an advantage and in my book, is not aid.

Many years ago I worked briefly in the railway industry. The (non-British) company that I worked for used to supply a lot of obsolescent railway equipment to African nations; the manufacturing plants for this equipment were kept very busy (between other orders) making it. One of the (non-British) employees of this company told me that this equipment was ordered by his government and then sent as ‘aid’ to African countries (whether they wanted it or not)…

…where most of it lay rusting and abandoned in the jungle.

The ‘foreign aid’ actually did little more than subsidise the industry in the donor country, massaged their ‘aid’ figures and was of no use whatsoever to those that received it!

Indeed, I don’t doubt it. I am thinking more of people doing, effectively, but in a non-colonial way, what was done up to the 60s in Africa. Many of those countries have huge unexploited reserves of raw materials and of course labour and potentially productive land. If we don’t get involved soon the Chinese will have taken over the continent, since they are doing what we, the Germans, Dutch, Portuguese and Belgians did 100 years ago.

Others where the justification is somewhat more nebulous (Nigeria??)…

Aren’t BP pretty busy in Nigeria extracting oil? 😉

[Edit: Nope, apparently not! BP sold its joint-venture stake with Shell.]

The principle for helping the 3rd world is fine but the practice is quite different. Any aid should be in the form of practical help and work on the ground in the communities. Cash doled out to governments will never end up where it is most needed.

Many years ago I worked briefly in the railway industry. The (non-British) company that I worked for used to supply a lot of obsolescent railway equipment to African nations; the manufacturing plants for this equipment were kept very busy (between other orders) making it. One of the (non-British) employees of this company told me that this equipment was ordered by his government and then sent as ‘aid’ to African countries (whether they wanted it or not)…

…where most of it lay rusting and abandoned in the jungle.

The ‘foreign aid’ actually did little more than subsidise the industry in the donor country, massaged their ‘aid’ figures and was of no use whatsoever to those that received it!

Top ten recipients for United Kingdom aid in 2009/2010:

1. India £295m
2. Ethiopia £214m
3. Bangladesh £149m
4. Sudan £146m
5. Tanzania £144m
6. Pakistan £140m
7. Afghanistan £133m
8. Nigeria £114m
9. Congo £109m
10. Ghana £90m

But what Warren do WE get from these Countries, in return?.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Lincoln

Ironically from 2015 onwards, when this aid ceases, we are going to have to work far harder to achieve less that is of value to us.

We don’t know how it will work after 2015. But in any case trade and aid should not be confused. Commercial agreements are drawn up between countries and within those agreements might be included any number of “sweeteners”. At least then it is all part of a commercial package and not dressed up in some other guise.

If we are really serious about expanding trade with India and a number of other countries then there are plenty of ways of developing it other than through spurious aid.

Lincoln

“yet we still support them with aid”

Thats probably the issue here…we dont!. We give them £295mn from the aid budget…and we get a great deal more back in trade following it. When you realise that we are doing nothing to ‘support them with aid’ realistically then you will see this for what it is.

Ironically from 2015 onwards, when this aid ceases, we are going to have to work far harder to achieve less that is of value to us.

CD,

I think there is some merit in rationalising the list of recipients and prioritising those where we have tangible near/mid-term goals.

Whether it is alleviating genuine suffering (anyone really going to complain about giving token sums to Bangladesh or Ethiopia?), chipping in to help alleviate security issues we may face in the long term (Pakistan, Sudan etc)…or like the Indian example where we can develop, encourage and support lucrative trade. In those kinds of cases I think it a fairly simple exercise to show a national interest in continuing the effort. Others where the justification is somewhat more nebulous (Nigeria??) could stand to be ceased and the savings clawed back and reapplied…though you do wonder quite how much that would ultimately add up to.

“Those figures don’t look right; is £2.875 billion (per year) really 0.7% of GDP?”

I wondered that – 2011 GDP was £ 1.4 trillion, 0.7% of which would be 9.8 billion. GDP shrunk last year but not by that much!!

The principle for helping the 3rd world is fine but the practice is quite different. Any aid should be in the form of practical help and work on the ground in the communities. Cash doled out to governments will never end up where it is most needed.

But if the GDPs of many African countries returned to 1960 levels in real terms they would not need any aid.