Aid

[John]

Like most people I suppose I was under the misapprehension that Aid was for the poor of the world.

Now we hear Call Me Dave and assorted other politicians fulminating because India looks like placing an order for jets with France instead of us `Despite the fact that we give them five times as much aid as France`

When private companies engaged in this type of palm greasing and bribery, because that is what it is, they were threatened with huge fines unless they ceased and desisted.

But even politicos are seeing the light. I read that there is a move afoot to scrap the upcoming increase in aid for DIfD to lash out. It seems that it will remain at a miserly Five Billion Pounds annually or whatever the hell it is. How many nurses would that fund to take proper care of elderly people who are dying in hospitals for lack of proper care.

[Lippytarian]

"Aid" covers things like humanitarian disaster relief and also a multitude of sins. Much of this "aid" is spent on "palm greasing" which means it is spent to provide a return to the UK by securing trading and diplomatic advantage. So when it is all added together and presented as a single number it is hard to know what that number means. Except that if the internationally agreed target is as little as 0.7% and we are undershooting that then it isn't a colossal amount.

Which do you object to the most? Humanitarian aid, or palm greasing? Perhaps we don't give enough "aid" to India -they are threatening to award that defence contract to the French?

[catfish]

they are threatening to award that defence contract to the French[/url]?

If they do will the French increase their aid to India as a thank you for giving them that aircraft contract ?

[Lippytarian]

If they do will the French increase their aid to India as a thank you for giving them that aircraft contract ?

Strange thought, but perhaps the price and the quality of the goods on offer has something to do with it? As for the back-hander and back-scratching stuff... it is all so opaque you just don't know. But the shenanigans isn't just about crude commercial bribery nor "aid" is it. Cameron's undiplomatic comment that Pakistan "looked both ways" on terrorism which appeared to be a shocking gaff at the time, may have been part of a charm offensive to curry favour with the Indians. Wheels within wheels within wheels.

Still, as things stand it looks like the French, in total, are better at whatever is going on than we are.

Breakdown of UK "aid" here. Obviously this is planned expenditure not disaster relief. Note that the greatest recipient of "aid" is Pakistan, set to double to over 1bn pounds. This fortune,[plus what the Americans pay] is the price of their at best half-hearted support in the "War On Terror". One wonders if we are getting value for money.

[catfish]

Now this from India

INDIA TELLS UK: WE DON’T WANT THE PEANUTS YOU GIVE US IN AID

FURY over the spiralling overseas aid budget erupted last night after it emerged that Indian leaders wanted to turn down British cash.
Pranab Mukherjee, India’s finance minister, dismissed the UK’s £280million-a-year aid to his country as “a peanut” that was not necessary to a country with a rapidly-growing economy.
His government backed down only after British officials begged it to accept the cash, according to sources in Delhi. 
   
 ]INDIA TELLS UK: WE DON’T WANT THE PEANUTS YOU GIVE US IN AID

India says it dosent need our aid
so what justification is there for us continuing to give it ?

[John]

Which do you object to the most? Humanitarian aid, or palm greasing?

I object strongly to both. Aid is a gravy train for so many little tinpot dictators and has been for years. It`s also a nice little earner for the usual suspects here. One of the DiFD big wheels was reported to be on well over 323,000 annually plus 40,000 annualy for a chauffeur driven limo.


I object to paying `cumshaw` as it used to be known because you just can`t compete for contracts abroad without paying it. Politicos have known this for years, some of the buggers paid it when they were in business before joining Parliament, but they took the two faced route and fined people for doing exactly what they now say they were doing;securing contracts for British companies. As I said...two faced bastards.

[Lippytarian]

Which do you object to the most? Humanitarian aid, or palm greasing?

I object strongly to both.

You object strongly to humanitarian aid. What a mean and shrivelled soul you have.



Do spare us the Daily Mail story about how some aid money was once embezzled, proving that humanitarian aid never does any good. Thanks.

[Lippytarian]

so what justification is there for us continuing to give it ?

That's a question for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Let me help you catch up. In the world of popular right-wing nonsense which I suppose you usually inhabit, these billions in "Aid" are given away by gullible stupid old us out of some misplaced sense of generosity, only for the money to find its way into the Swiss bank account of some corrupt politician. Am I right? (And of course proper racists would be against aid because they would simply prefer to see brown people die.)

BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT MOST "AID" IS.

The justification for us continuing to give it is that giving the aid accrues to the UK an advantage in its business and diplomatic interests overseas. This Indian arms deal might be a spectacularly crude and obvious example - in most cases the payback being sought isn't usually so immediate or so large. But it is about our Foreign Office going out into the world and cultivating an environment which is beneficial for the UK. Their professional judgement is that these donations of money, materials, food, construction projects or whatever, is good for us - if it does any good for Indians that is by the by. A good analogy would be commercial companies making political donations and lobbying. Not exactly bribery but they expect some time or another to get something back in return, some moment when someone in a ministry somewhere will look benignly on something they are trying to do, some change to a regulation, some planning application, something to provide a return on what they regard as an investment. When Bernie Ecclestone gave his millions first to the Tories when they were winning and then to Labour when they were winning it wasn't an act of largesse. So it is with much of this "Aid".

The shrill clamour to reduce and minimise the "aid" budget rather misses the point of what "aid" is. A few million here or there in famine relief is usually what you hear about. Over 1000 million is going to each of India and Pakistan. And although the levels of poverty there could realistically be used to justify that level of "aid", in truth that is not the reason such huge amounts are spent.

The course of international relations is not a moral thing and "aid" is a big part of it. You will remember that when appointed Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook declared he would bring a "moral dimension" to foreign policy. There is no reason to doubt his good intentions - but they didn't survive the first whiff of a juicy arms deal with the Indonesians.

[John]

So your heatrending picture of the little boy means what exactly in light of your learned treatise on aid?

[catfish]

That's a question for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Let me help you catch up. In the world of popular right-wing nonsense which I suppose you usually inhabit, these billions in "Aid" are given away by gullible stupid old us out of some misplaced sense of generosity, only for the money to find its way into the Swiss bank account of some corrupt politician. Am I right?(And of course proper racists would be against aid because they would simply prefer to see brown people die.)

Complete and utterly  untrue I do not want to see anyone die brown people or anyone else die and I find it galling to be accused of that
 Especially When it  spend millions of pounds every year on its  space programme
Which includes having their own space shuttle

India’s Space  Research Organisation

Why isn’t this  going instead to the poor and starving
Or is the prestige of having their own space programme more important

[Lippytarian]

So your heatrending picture of the little boy means what exactly in light of your learned treatise on aid?

It means that as well as the palm-greasing, some of the money lumped together and called "aid" is used to do a great deal of good. You should regard the intentions and much of the work of NGOs and a myriad of charitable organisations working around the world, funded by "aid", as the noblest pinnacle of human endeavour. People working for long periods overseas often in poor conditions for low pay or on a voluntary basis. Our children doing VSO. Much of it is excellent and effective work.

And there is the issue of utility. The small change in your pocket could save a life. Or you could use it to purchase a copy of the Daily Mail, which will trumpet one instance of some "aid" finding its way into the Swiss bank account of a corrupt official, (something that most likely was the intention when the "aid" was given) and claim this invalidates the giving of "aid".

[John]

So why call it aid and use that to look good when in fact it is cumshaw for which governments have fined private companies?

[Lippytarian]

So why call it aid and use that to look good when in fact it is cumshaw for which governments have fined private companies?

Why call it "aid"? I guess that is more palatable than "cumshaw". The reason Pakistan is the biggest recipient of "aid" is to help keep it onside diplomatically. You seem to have said that paying other government to align themselves with your interests is wrong in principle. I'm not so sure about that, though I am sure the money could be better spent elsewhere. In any case the government judges it is worth it for the influence, leverage that it buys.

[John]

You seem to have said that paying other government to align themselves with your interests is wrong in principle.

If I said that then I expressed myself badly. I see nothing wrong with bribing other countries to treat us favourably, or to pay cumshaw to use an old far east expression. What I object to is fining private compnies which do exactly the same, for the same reasons. It is two faced and self defeating. You may be sure that more pragmatic governments will be dilghtedly laughing at us as they scoop up the contracts. a state of self righteous poverty has no appeal to me.

Fighters to India?  We dont know how much `aid `France has actually paid to India in any form do we