Gordon Brown to send £8.5bn to Africa etc

[wendigo100]

The efficacy of the aid is not the point.
Why don't we not give any aid at all and find out what a public relations disaster it is to Britain's image round the world? Countries are selling a brand too - which translates into increased trade opportunities, political alliances etc.
But as I said earlier, it's too much to ask a techie to see the big picture.

SAS, you make my point for me. Your big picture is to continue sending aid ad infinitum in a concience competition. There is no end to that road.

[Gold Dalek]

SAS, you make my point for me. Your big picture is to continue sending aid ad infinitum in a concience competition. There is no end to that road.

I like the cut of your jib young lady.... I...I ... think I love you (but only if you're female )

[sasguru]

I like the cut of your jib young lady.... I...I ... think I love you

Wendigo is a bloke, Gay Dalek.

[Gold Dalek]

Wendigo is a bloke, Gay Dalek.

agreed - I should have qualified the statement - is that better?

[sasguru]

SAS, you make my point for me. Your big picture is to continue sending aid ad infinitum in a concience competition. .

No its not. It has nothing to do with conscience. My big picture is that it's impossible for geo-political reasons for any Western country to cut off aid completely and secondly the amount we contribute is very low (e.g. per capita less than Malta or Cyprus).
I agree that much of the aid is probably misused. It would be far better to allow a level playing field for indigenous poducers to trade fairly, as others have mentioned.

[eternalnomad]

Did you know that the UK still contributes rather a lot of dosh (tens of millions annually) to India in foreign aid.

India is now established as a major global economy and is in a strong position to feed its own poor. Its about time the new "middle-classes" of India were hit with a "fairness" tax to feed their own poor and downtrodden rather than expecting UK plc to do that job for them.

[Emperor Dalek]

Surely you're not suggesting, Dalek, that people challenge their prejudices by looking at the facts?

The issue is more complicated than it seems. The power of entrenched lobbies means that the average hard-working third-world producer is not adequately compensated. And, yes, the aid money goes to fuel the despots and their fleets of Mercs. Crap all round really.

Most un-Dalek like, isn't it?

But you are right, what's to be done about it? Cutting off aid would clearly prejudice British overseas interests. It's the moralising that gets my goat. GB gets all self-rightoeous and holier than thou about aid, but in actuality all he is doing is buying influence overseas for Britain.

[IR35 Avoider]

Why is he giving so much of our money overseas ?

How will this benefit me and my local community ?

How will it benefit the 94-year old veteran who lives 2 doors down from me who can't afford a daily carer and has to rely on family ?

How will it benefit the family with a spastic child across the road where one parent has had to give up work ?

How will it help the local primary school fund new books because the LEA have cut all budgets ?

How will it help the local church repair the damaged vestry after a fire by yobboes ?

How will it help the local doctors purchase an x-ray machine, so patients can be x-rayed quickly, rather than wait 8 weeks for a hospital appointment.

Gordon ? WTF are you doing ?

Let's leave aside the question of the exact purpose of social spending and assume we are comparing like with like, e.g. education here with education in Africa, or x-ray machine here with x-ray machine in Africa.

It's pretty likely that per capita spending on whatever good you choose is umpteen times lower in Africa than it is here, so the utility from providing that good will be a lot higher in Africa than here. So if on moral grounds you support the government taxing you to spend money on people you don't know, you should want them to spend it in Africa. You should want them in fact to end free education and health-care in the UK and spend the money in Africa.

Of course very few UK voters do want this, which is why it doesn't happen. Redistribution doesn't exist primarily for moral reasons. The reason voters broadly support Gordon confiscating some people's money and spending it on others is because they have correctly calculated they gain more than they lose.

Why would you prefer Gordon to give money to people you don't know in the UK rather than even worse off people you don't know in Africa?

[Emperor Dalek]

Why would you prefer Gordon to give money to people you don't know in the UK rather than even worse off people you don't know in Africa?

IR35 Avoider, I think the naysayers are in fact saying they would prefer he didn't take the money at all, rather than quibbling about who it's given to.

[Gold Dalek]

IR35 Avoider, I think the naysayers are in fact saying they would prefer he didn't take the money at all, rather than quibbling about who it's given to.

Indeed they are oh omnipotent bulbous one!

btw are you male or female?