The Times have previously supported Labour. They're biased - like every single media outlet including the BBC - but I don't see them as blindly Tory. And I definitely don't see the Guardian as 'the' unbias paper
Sorry, I know this is the Serious forum, but it's "unbiased". One shows bias, one is biased. edit: Also, bias in the media is like accents in people. All media has some, and people only tend to say that none exists where the views expressed by the media agency align with their own. People who don't think the grauniad is biased will have views aligned with them, people who don't think The Daily Mail is biased, will be nazi's. Or something like that.
And you think tabloids like the Sun or Daily Mail are paragons of truth? If you take anything away from these forums this year please make it this: PAPERS SELL STORIES, not the "truth". Even the Times.
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it. --A Fish Called Wanda Yes, Dwarfer, but you also need to use your brain.
Are you suggesting that aid should only be given or in this case was as a form of bribe and that we shouldn’t assist the populations of other countries less fortunate than our own without a specific calculable return? Whilst I appreciate the accuracy of your figures, and the unfortunate circumstance of those who make up these numbers, you don’t include the very important relationship between the actual cost of living in proportion to the available spend, which is relevant to appreciate the significance between the two living circumstances. After all, the cost of living at a basic level in the UK is significantly higher than that of rural India. The fact of the matter is we as a nation do benefit financially as a result of maintaining political and economic associations with India, which contributes to the tax available to pay pensioners their winter fuel payments. http://www.iptu.co.uk/content/india_exporting.asp As others have said, India’s military capability is a necessary capability in view of the volatility of certain neighbours and are actively encouraged by the West to maintain it. As to their space programme, whilst I agree their proposed “space exploration” seems an ill-afforded luxury, which I do not agree with, that forms only one part of their programme; another part is the profitably run satellite launch services. Unicorn, have you been logging on as Spec?
Cost of living has to be viewed against standard of living, IMO. If the average British college graduate lived in the the same conditions as the the average Indian grad, I'd wager their cost of living would come down sharpish. "Basic" here =/= "basic" there.
Should aid to the 16 countries be stopped? - Yes. Does aid help bring stability? - Has it done so in Africa? Should Britain be increasing its aid budget? - No. Stop spending on overseas aid that increases year on year with no real effect on providing a solution to the problems we are attempting to help with. Spend the money on our own country for a change.
Basic here (UK) could not possibly equal basic there (India) if for no other reason than the cost of and restrictions/controls with regard to housing in the UK, which forms a substantial part of cost of living here. Here you cannot either be forced (leaving aside the homeless issue who are homeless for a variety of reasons) or choose to erect a tin hut with no utilities or facilities, even if you wanted to. Income disparity is not the larger issue. It is the proportional relationship of income versus the cost of living, and the cost of living in rural parts of India will always be considerably lower than in the UK (as stated above)
For a change? Dwarfer, what are you on about? The government spends about 38.3% of our national income on the UK, and 0.7%, the absolute minimum amount allowed under EU regulations, on other countries. Really, seriously, go through your mind and find every bit of information and "facts" you picked up from the Daily Mail or The Sun, and just label them as "crap" in your mind. That's what almost all of the data one picks up in such rags is. Does giving a few billion here and there fix a generally broken continent with 800 million people on it in a few years? No. Of course it doesn't. Does foreign aid improve conditions in many countries around the world? If you look at child mortality rates, literacy rates, numbers of people with access to clean water - you'll find that yes, it does. No worries there, it'll stay at precisely 0.7% of the GDP. Is there no real effect? Or is there no real effect that you've read about? Have the tabloids made this claim and you accepted it without requiring any actual evidence? Because in fact UK aid does some pretty decent things in many countries around the globe. There are quite clear solutions to a great number of problems in the world, they just cost money, and right now we give as little as we can.
New post! "It also piles pressure on the Government over the £1.2billion aid it is giving in the next five years to India. It has more billionaires than Britain but International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell has said the aid would help win contracts. " So we give aid because we expect something back. Sure, I know thats how the world works, but that makes the UK wrong, not India India got capable planes for less money. If they paid more than they needed, wouldn't that be exactly what we're talking about? Misusing money that can be used in plenty of other ways? It sounds as though spending extra is fine.... as long as it's with the UK. How selfish. "India has more billionaires tha the UK" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires Sure.... multiply the UK population by ~ 15x and get 1.66x the number of billionaires. I don't think India is doing better than us in that respect. Sounds like the sun is trying to stir up some anti-Indian feeling.
If it's any consolation, the deal to buy the French planes will in all likelihood collapse. The original contract was supposed to have been worth no more than $11bn but the approximate figure for the Dassault deal is $18bn. They'll either can it and re-tender or just drop the whole idea anyway and everyone in S. Asia will point and laugh.
It's probably a balance of incomes and outgoings to India. There's probably a lot of trade deals going back and forth and part of the packahge is that the UK invest money into India too. Didn't the Liverpudlian say that an Indian firm rescued the rover plant in the UK which will pump money into the UK economy. The aid is just a mask. The UK doesn't want to upset the Pakistanis and subsidise India for it's new aircraft or space programme. It will ruin it's ties with Pakistan. So they're just fiddling the numbers around, instead of paying for the new aircrafts, the UK is paying for Indian aid, which the Indian government has already earmarked funds for.
I was watching this argument on Question Time earlier this week. One of the things that Lord Digby said (and he's the Director of the CBI) which I agreed with was that India spending money on these programmes and investing in infrastructure will help India move more quickly out of poverty simply because it gives normal Indians the chance to educate themselves and pull themselves out of poverty. He also went onto state the the defence contract was for France to lose (i.e. the contract has not being signed yet) so the Typhoon could still get it if they undercut the Rafale contract with a lower price. IAF policy states that they have to pick a defence contract that is: the lowest cost for suitability. All other jet fighters were eliminated because they either cost too much, were too similar to what the Indians have now or because the fighter jets that the IAF specified did not come with the radar system they wanted (this was the US F-series jets as they would not export the jets with that radar system). India is going through what the UK went through 200+years ago during the industrial revolution. We had horrific levels of poverty & abuse back then but through the use of manufacturing & building stuff we managed to pull ourselves up to become one of the 'premiere' countries in the world. We should be giving the aid to the most affected Indians to help them out with education/vaccination etc (even if India cancelled all military/space funding it STILL wouldn't have enough money to drag itself out of poverty and would exacerbate the situation) but it should only be for the next 5/10years at most and it should be capped at a small amount and fully audited. Other countries (I believe the US is one) place restrictions on aid such as: If you get $100million of food/healthcare/vaccines, then a new airport/power station/railway has to be built by US-only companies using US labour and all taxes back to the US. This is not helpful at all and only increases the situation because normal Indians are not being given the chance to be trained up by us in the West with the aim of taking over the future maintenance/running of these types of infrastructure/manufacturing. The quotes being bandied around by others about elderly people dieing because they can't afford heating is a symptom of modern British society and no-one else's problem. It is a combination of the most basic service providers (electricity/water/gas/telecoms) putting profits before anything else. Fair enough, the most basic principle of a company is to make money but that doesn't help people out. If one of these companys sacrified their rather stupidly high profits for smaller profits and lower bills then everyone would be so much happier (I'm sick of this increasing Americanisation of management pay & remuneration. It's simply too greedy and not British.) What also annoys me even more are the 'baby-boomer' generation that are complaining abouts pensions/healthcare/cost of everything. Need I remind them that you had it good back then (yes, I accept you had to work very long hours and do hard grafting) and because of your generation's poor management skills / poor negotiation skills / poor foresight and too much short-termism (short-termism is still around now i.e. the HS2 railway debate) you have saddled my generation (I'm 23) and my kids & my grandkids generation for your own gain. It's pathetic and you should shut up. I don't care if your pension doesn't cover your 'middle-class' (I accept that those who gave up work such as mum's/the disabled/those on very poor wages all their working life deserve much more money and help) lifestyle. I'm not going to be able to retire at 60/65 like you did (more like retire at 75/80 by the time I get to 60+yo) and have an expected 30/40years of retirement to enjoy, I'm not going to be able to be financially secure and enjoy the fruits of my labour as much as you did unless I earn an absolute boatload of money (which I fully intend on doing as I'm competent enough to work in both business & IT and that nowadays is seen as an ideal hybrid-job), I have no chance of ever getting a reasonable mortgage (and no: 25/30 year long mortgages are not acceptable at all when back in your day you could easily put money aside and buy a house outright within 5/10 years or so because you had sensible house prices back then.) I also dispise my tax being given out on benefits to those who don't need them. If you are a woman under-18 who has a child you should not be eligible and the child forcibly taken off you because you have proven that you don't have the mental capacity or financial means to look after one, immigrants (whether EU or non-EU) should not be eligible for any benefits until they have paid 24 months of consecutive tax to the government (apart from specifics such as a young child who is ill/sick through no means of their own). If I want to live in France or Germany I would never be given benefits straight away. Sorry for my endless ranting. Bad week at Uni
This is one subject that really winds me up but for once I will shut it. Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk
So you're happy for TAX Payers money to go outside of the UK and help the poor (which in this case is the slums of India) who have the money already but choose to spend it on other things. Well matey, that's not my problem nor the British Tax Payers. It's Indian's problem alone!!!! but the UK Population (who's tax is being used as AID Money) are left to fend for themselves. Might be peanuts to you pal, but that kind of money is what us British are making cuts and suffering for. you ungrateful twonk!!
Should aid be stopped? No. Why? Because it works. Does aid bring stability? Yes. It has proved to significantly reduce diseases like malaria and AIDS. Not our problem? In this global age a man can catch a highly contagious, potentially lethal bug in the jungle of Africa and stagger off a plane in any Western airport five hours later. Tricky. It has increased literacy and education. Why does this matter to us? Research shows that children of educated Muslim women are significantly less likely to join terrorist causes. An educated population is an informed population, more likely to vote for peaceful democratic governments and less likely to support potentially hostile dictators or fundamentalist governments. It has increased health care. Why does this matter to us? Reductions in infant mortality have resulted in significantly lower birth rates in less than one generation, as parents can invest more effort in one child that is more likely to survive. This reduces the global overpopulation. Thing is Dwarfer, you say that you see and hear, but if you do it is no further than your own back yard. You read tabloids that cater to a small-minded parochial readership. You do not see that there is a whole complex world outside of your back yard and you don't connect the dots. Moreover you don't know what you don't know, and you know very little.
In where does AID bring stability to Africa? ----------- In other news... 'India tells Britain: We don't want your aid ' We have no business giving taxpayers money to a country that has space and nuclear programmes! perhaps the govt will finally listen! Time we stopped giving away our money to anyone, we have plenty of need for it in this country. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ndia-tells-Britain-We-dont-want-your-aid.html
