Well let's see: If you want cheap electricity/gas/water supplies in this country, there are only 2 ways to do this: A) Pass through laws that require all energy/infrastructure companies to cut the amount they charge for energy. This won't work as it will be overturned all the Supreme Courts in the UK and the EU Courts will probably fine the UK government for unfairness too. B) Re-nationalise all energy/infrastructure companies and cut the prices that way. Unfortunately this will cost many £billion's of TAXPAYER'S money to do this and you will end up with a situation like RBS & Lloyds/HBOS where you get stuck between a rock & a hardplace. In an ideal world we wouldn't be giving aid to any country at all. All diseases would be cured with very cheap drugs, everyone would be well educated etc but the world isn't fair so we try and change what we can within the limits we have.
I think I just outlined that above. Of course there is a lot of bad administration and government corruption which ruins it for countries like Zaire, but Ghana for instance does reasonably well out of it. India does not want the aid money because there are strings attached. I guess it wants to have the freedom to be able to buy French jets.
From the Telegraph article linked to by Dwarfer See what I meant about corruption? Christ, if you're going to spend money on whateverdafuq at least make sure it's spent right. And you're relying on politicians who steal aid money to finance films to scratch your back for a $20bn airplane contract? Jeez...
We all know that the foreign aid process is massively flawed and marred by corruption. I certainly don't think it is the best process, and that in many cases it does more damage than good. However overall the results are slightly better than worse. There are better places to save money so our old folk don't freeze to death. How about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Dwarfer seems to have no problem with spending billions of pounds over the last ten years to kill some Taliban scum.
No country is exempt from money being misused/ embezzled. Aid money gets siphoned here too. Is it ok because it's a British person squandering it?
Nexxo, I with you on all counts. However, this thread is about UK aid to India and despite Dwarfer's anger (-> hate -> dark side), I cannot help but think he's right. That money is being wasted. At least spend money with some accountability and oversight. I read all the way 'til here. Then all I could think of was
Aid money is being spent badly. But the solution to that is not to stop giving aid at all, just to do it differently. Dwarfer primarily argues from a position of egocentrism, not lack of effectiveness. On the latter he might be able to make a point but his arguments are simply not supported by the facts.
Whilst corruption, funds mismanagement, fraud and so on are obviously bad, we can hardly preach to others when our own European Union has such a poor track record: Extract from the Court of Auditors report on payments in respect of financial year 2010: 3.7% represents potential "inappropriate payments" of €4.2 billion!
Well whatever the case, it can't be as wasteful as blowing up bridges then paying to rebuild them again, or even limbs off of children then paying for the medical needs required to replace them with artificial ones.
€4.2 billion in a year? Psshhh... try $39 billion over a single sale. I agree that Dwarfer is not making sense, but his idea that UK aid to India needs to go stands. India doesn't need aid. Any country that will spend $20bn on warplanes while a massive chunk of its population is starving and/or living in abject poverty cannot be the recipient of foreign aid. The "security and stability" argument is nonsense. As it stands, there is nothing India can do if China should flex muscles in the region - it would take hundreds of billions for India to come to any sort of parity with China. And with even at half strength, Indian armed forces could wipe Pakistan from the history books. There is no argument to be made for security when citizens lie dying. If you're serious about changing things, crack the whip. If you're not, then save the cash or spend it elsewhere.
The UK, and the tabloids obviously think it can, as long as that £20bn is spent on British war planes, not French ones.
I could agree with you that the sky is blue, but argue that it is because that's how the faeries painted it. See how consensus on an opinion does not necessarily mean consensus on the underlying causes or facts? Pedantic, I know. You are arguing about ideology, or put simpler, ideas. This means that you have to master the facts and present them coherently and eloquently in support of your ideas. Else people will dismiss your idea, and ultimately, you. So you think aid to India should stop? OK, support that with facts, not assumptions.
Come on buddy, you know this isn't a grown up stance to take. India is surrounded by Pakistan (dangerous), Nepal (safe), Bangladesh (meh), and China (Oh crap...) - they've got border disputes with the two dangerous countries, have fought shooting wars with both of them in the last century, both are nuclear armed, the list goes on. India can't realistically just not bother with its military. There's no good in feeding a few million people in a country of 1 billion if you can't protect the 1 billion. Arguments against aid which stem from "they've got a military" are, frankly, childishly naive. Countries, especially ones with dangerous and hostile neighbours, require militaries. While India does have lots of problems, and some good motivating reasons not to give it aid, them having a military is not one of I looked into this, you're right. Anything except defence of the homeland or kicking Pakistan's ass and India isn't well suited to it. Then again, how could they ever be if they didn't make purchases like the Rafales? There is every argument to be made. The primary purpose of any state is internal and external security - not feeding people.
Scale of loss/fraud/mismanagement/plain incompetence (whichever reason) resulting from India's 2G mobile telephony licence sales doesn't change the fact that the EU do it every year, money that could be used elsewhere, even as aid contributions to other countries, and is not a reason not to give aid. Edit: It may be a damn good reason not to give it directly to a government/any government to administer but as Spec has already posted ... http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=2956887&postcount=13
As far as we're told all three countries have nuclear weapons, assuming this is correct it would rule out a full scale invasion, small skirmishes here and there sure, and those occur from time to time in the mountains regions between India and Pakistan, there are also frictions in the buffer zone bordering India and China. India is in no need of foreign aid anymore than Saudi Arabia, money and resources could be better spent elsewhere. Having a healthy, content, and stable populace, falls both under internal and social security. I believe the English and the Greeks have some experience with this, in case of Greece it was food riots.
My dear man, I live in what is probably the most targeted city in the world. I had air raid drills in '99 when Kargil looked to spill beyond Kashmir. Most of my family is either military of ex-military. When I say military procurement is f**ked up the yin-yang, I do believe I have a fairly accurate perspective from which to speak. I work on an almost daily business with politicians and bureaucrats. I know how they work. When it comes to aid out of the UK and the way our government handles money (any money, foreign or domestic) I think we need a lot more whip-cracking and a lot less molly-coddling simply because "omg Pakis want Hindu BBQ". Like I said, the Rafales are a drop in the ocean compared to what we'd need. In point of fact, what we'd truly need would be some political spine and some goddamned integrity as a nation and as a people. Who needs China and Pakistan when the country's being torn apart from the inside? China's probably sitting back, pointing and laughing. Why worry about Pakistan or China killing Indians when they're dying by the thousands anyway? If the endgame is no dead indians, surely keeping them alive in peacetime, then worrying about possible wars is the right way to go about it? Especially when there is already plenty keeping the two major threats in check (as discussed above, plus big Russia, plus Japan, plus Big Brother America).
Whatever your argument, whatever your race or religion, or mine for that matter, I don't like that term so please don't use it, and frankly the phrase is offensive too (whether it's true or not)!
