John.

Permit me to re-arrange your quote: “The UK’s aid commitment means we can be proud to be a country that meets its responsibilities to first its own citizens, prioritises their needs and then ensures that overseas aid goes to those most in need”.

This is your last para on post 3 going by what I see on screen. Not only is there no actual question there the entire premise is absurd.

Once again, as it is a fact that you are trying desperately to ignore, the value of the money spent on overseas aid is equal to 0.7% of GDP compared to near 40% of GDP spent on Social Welfare…approximately the same amount that is leftover as unclaimed surplus every year. The claim that money gone to international aid is stolen out the pockets of our own is ridiculous….plenty is poured down the welfare black hole in this country.

Infrastructure projects not being funded?. Are you currently on prescription medication?. Have you heard of HS2?. How about Crossrail?. Do you think the endless rounds of studies into new runways in the south are free?. You dont like the prioritisation of the funds?. Unlucky!. Dont try and make out the spend is not there though!.

NHS. Funded to more than £110bn….theres only 60 odd million of us on the whole island!. If they cant work out core medical care for this number of people when its funded to the tune of £2000 for every man, woman and child in the country there’s something deeply wrong that needs changing. When breast implants are being provided on the NHS over critical-care paediatric medicine, as you claim, then the problem clearly isnt the amount of money in the pot.

That last one is the bottom line to this….its not ‘charity begins at home’ thats actually your point. You haven’t the first idea that, if the aid budget was shut off tomorrow, the money would be redirected into all those projects you list. In reality its extremely unlikely it would….rather it would go to debt reduction. You dont really care about that though do you John. You just dont like the idea of us giving money to foreigners period. As I said elsewhere fella….you get marks for consistency.

On paper the French one seems the biggest and baddest…………

For my money I cant see why you wouldnt go with the Soryu. Problems with the French boat are:

Essentially its an untried design based on, from what I can see, an unsuitable hull. If you’re going to do this buy the nuke version and cut your order back 30%. By all means then go with the French hull….its letter perfect for Aussie needs. This looks to be a hull that is built on the basis of having a nuclear plant to push it. Replacing that with far less powerful propulsion is going to necessitate a big AIP fit with a lot of fuel bunkerage. Size is only an advantage for conventional subs up to a certain tipping point…after that point is reached you hit a destructive spiral whereby every increase in dimension adds hydrodynamic drag and requires more power and fuel (for a given range) the addition of which adds a further increase in dimension…or a reduction of useable internal volume….negating the point of the larger hull.

Against this the Soryu is virtually a de-risked hull. Its designed for precisely the self same, warmer, waters that the RAN operate in, so the power budget for HVAC under real conditions is a known quantity, and is optimised for essentially the same sensor/weapon fit that the RAN have experience with and want to use.

No-one can say that the French boat is going to be a bad choice. IF the propulsion fit matches the hull and doesnt need the hull to be one big fuel tank…..IF the HVAC is properly calculated for operations in warmer water…..if the weapons/sensor integration happens as the RAN wants then it could be a very interesting design. There are just some absolutely massive “IF’s” there that the Japanese boat has pretty much already got answers for.

There is also the intangible benefit of sharing a basic platform with a leading regional military power….not a principle reason to make a selection of course, but, something you’d consider a major benefit in operations terms over the years not least in terms of platform development. Who else is a likely customer for a French diesel converted nuke boat?.

Looks a pretty odd decision to me….just in operational terms.

I can only speak, with any kind of certainty, on the Pakistan issue here charlie but there is governance of the aid insofar as its possible. My company supported the British Council and I’ve had cause to meet with a few of their guys over the years and I’ve picked up bits and pieces of what really goes on. The Pakistan thing was one that stood out. The money provided was tail-loaded so, after seed money went in to open new schools that the parents could trust to give a real education to their kids, paid on a sliding scale by the numbers that passed through with demonstrable education. Basically they were rewarded for success.

I’m sure that its not the case everywhere. I’m sure some aid money is thinly-veiled bribery and I’m sure some money that couldve gone to aid starving, one-legged female binmen in Lowestoft has been wasted on some el Presidente’s collection of Mercedes limo’s. The point is though that a lot hasnt and that we have had good people out there doing good in these communities and, in the process, contributing to our society just as much.

Wonderful to have an argument when you know that there is no way to replay history without the sums invested in those countries to identify the difference. I’d suggest that sticking our head in the sand and wishing, fervently, for Africa to just crawl off and be someone elses problem is exactly whats got us to where we are now. We have, by historical conduct, an internationalist foreign policy….this is in any way you measure it still the right policy. Those who have no voice in world events can do nothing to control them and they become victims to the will of those who do. I do not want to wake up one day and find that the kind of short-sighted isolationism you are promoting really has relegated us to international insignificance.

No, it most certainly isn’t ‘money well spent’. The question of radicalising madrassa’s is something that the local authority should deal with, it should not be a charge on the British taxpayer or, any other foreign taxpayer for that matter, for the rather simple reason that the ultimate destination of any funding is beyond control, as confirmed by the ONS – on another matter to be sure but, still connected with foreign aid funding – of the donor.

As for your nonsensical argument in your first paragraph. Yes, if it is at the expense of the 14 billions of foreign aid we should certainly prioritise funding into our welfare state for the benefit of our citizens. Prioritising yet again, according to severity of need, which places breast augmentation well down on the list and drug therapy for children likely to experience the horrors of the meningitis bacterium high on the list. It isn’t a difficult concept.

It is beyond belief that a comfortably off, well cushioned society such as ours can still experience social deprivation at home while doing little about it, while shovelling vast riches to the unaccountable third world. Are we stark mad ?

Finally, if you want to be taken seriously, rubbish your opponents arguments by all means but do not rubbish the opponent. Personal insults make you look cheap and diminish your standing.

If you have the time and the inclination perhaps you and Trekkie would please tell us all how much you agree with the last para. of 3#.

John,

If you dont want the validity of your opinions critiqued dont make idiotic generalisations about the adherents of a religion!. Also dont try and insinuate that the British taxpayer is footing the entire bill for something like counter-radicalisation in Pakistan when clearly its an issue on the local agenda and we, as a nation with a vested interest in sorting the problem out over there so it lessens the chances of it coming here, are just helping out. Bit of intellectual honesty would go a great distance here yes?.

So we should keep pouring billion after billion into welfare in your estimation?. Very socialist of you!. The point is that while there are stupid and unnecessary procedures being undertaken by the NHS and similar ‘wooly’ schemes funded through the immense social welfare budget (remember 15bn not claimed annually its that bloated!) at the taxpayers expense we absolutely cannot take away money like that to Pakistan or like the money going into providing education in Ethiopia or Bangladesh as these are the investments that will reduce security threats and immigration issues facing us down the track.

Your basic premise is wrong….its not about charity. Its in our interest to see these countries develop and become successful….even if you take away any stance of morality and just look at the simple cost/benefit calculation helping people to build modern, educated, communities and giving people the incentive to stay at home and not go for the rubber boat over the Med has to be a good thing. You have to be able to see that?.

So, for example, John you’d support the current funding priorities that see cosmetic breast augmentation or well-being seminars for ‘mal-adjusted’ teenagers being provided on the NHS over the expensive drugs for these children?. You think that we should just keep pouring more and more funds into the never-ending welfare black hole?.

As for the madrassa’s lads end up in them when there is no alternative for them or when families are pressured to sending their lads for indoctrination. The alternates are schools, proper educational institutions, that teach a curriculum that doesnt help to create another generation of jihadi’s. Try and come up with some generalisation about Islam all you like, all it does is show your lack of experience and education. Without those key things how can you have an opinion thats worth anything?. Bottom line is that its money well spent.

Paul

“If you can’t afford to breed. don’t.”

Not being funny mate but you do know some of the aid we send would be to educate out exactly that message and to provide help with birth control to areas that wouldn’t have either. Traditional wisdom in many areas, as it once was here, was that if you have lots of kids then some will survive to look after you in your dotage. That has to be trained out and involves a bit more than a quick leaflet campaign.

As to looking after our own….not sure you can say that we arent when 35-40% of all govt spending is on social welfare. How much is enough??