Isn't he the fellow who said that he couldn't understand why anyone would employ a woman of childbearing age?

Yeah, but the reporting of what he says and does is just a smear campaign.

Shame on us for judging people on their words and actions.

Yes, but to pretend its just UKIP people who say those sort of things in ridiculous. I am sure there'll be many more serious politicians who say that sort of thing in private.

Just to pick up on this point, I do think that there are, in essence, several different kinds of aid.

There is, as El Barbudo points out, disaster relief, which I deeply hope nobody considers a 'bad spend', so to speak.

But we know that there is aid that is tied to trade. Should that happen?

There's also the question of whether aid helps actually shores up undemocratic regimes.

And another question, about whether aid should be given to any country that is stated to be a booming economy, such as India. Does aid then actually work against nations improving economic conditions for all?

I'm not, incidentally, claiming to know the answers, but I do think the questions need to be asked (at the least).

And I think that it is also valid to point out that, largely due to the increasing gap between the very rich and the rest in the UK, Save the Children is now spending (aid) money in this country, as it has never had to do before.

That's what I meant by state-sponsored bribery.

I touched on it earlier, but wanted to clarify that:

a) I am not anti aid per se;

b) that I do not believe that aid can be simplified into just one variety.

The cynic in me thinks the good causes aid may be a smoke-screen for aid that promotes the so called "national interest" in unstable and developing regions (as opposed to purchasing antelopes)?

As I hope I've made quite clear (and it's entirely possible that I haven't, because I'm absolutely creamingcrackered right now), I think that there is an element of this. Or rather, an element of 'the national interest' actually being about private business and private profit, which given what we know about tax policies by companies, may well translate into taxpayer subsidy of private profit.

To clarify (again): I am not anti aid per se (remotely);

And there is nothing (IMO) inherently wrong with "private business and private profit".

He's not wrong. I think too much is given away.

Gosh, that's a surprise ... and with such detailed and thoughtful reasoning to support your view.
Thanks.

Despite now trying to sell the amount of overseas aid we give as a means if limiting potential immigration to the UK by saying if we help fix problems in other countries their nationals won't come running here, I do believe Cameron [idoes[/i see a moral obligation to provide overseas aid to the poorest countries. It's the last vestige of moral decency I can see in a pretty vile and reactionary government.

I think it's interesting he is having to appeal to his core vote by taking this line - that it is somehow an anti-immigration policy as its an illustration of the moral bankruptcy of many of is core support.

Not only can't they see the moral responsibility owed to the poor in this country they have to be persuaded it's in [itheir[/i self interest to support overseas aid (or so Cameron thinks). Never mind giving aid to help the poorest people in the world because its the right thing to do in its own right.

Yes there is corruption just as there are benefits cheats and tax evaders and avoiders. Given the way a minority of benefit abuse and a few extreme cases of high benefit payouts shape entire government policy on welfare it's quite amazing the same hasn't happened with overseas aid and we no longer give any!

£17 billion also buys quite a lot of work for UK companies and workers. Much of the aid budget is given in soft loans that are to be used to buy from UK companies. The expectation being that those loans will never be repaid.

We give aid to a corrupt "bongo bongo" country, Mr President of said "bongo bongo" country spends it on UK made weapons to kill off all those that stand against him, we recieve all the money back plus the preferential treatment of any Mining/building projects and actually end up better off financially.

What's the problem?

=#FFFFFFThis is tongue in cheek

so he's not all bad then.

My major bug bear is that we give millions to countries that are spending fortunes on nuclear weapons and space programmes that are more advanced than our own whilst neglecting to provide food, water, health care and sanitation for the vast majority of their populations.

Rather than give billions in cash could we not give billions in services i.e. if you want a dam building we will build the dam for you at no cost to you? Or would we not win the contract unless we provide 25% more than it costs to build the dam in 'consultancy fees'!!

Can't we just sell them arm's?

Or fighter planes and tanks?

Sell them weapons to kill their own people and their neighbours, then sell medicine to the people who are being shot, sell weapons to the neighbours to fight back, soon as the war is over send over builders for infrastructure, when they turn on us with the weapons we sold them employ more soldiers to fight them which in turn means employing more nurses and doctors and speeds up the revenue of the undertakers.
Foreign aid, it's the future.

We could.


Laissez faire capitalism, bit of a bugger sometimes, isn't it?

How dare you!

What sacrifices have you made in order to be able to say that?

One thing is for sure it will be impossible to sacrifice less than you - all that tax sacrifice - is that really the best you can come up with!!

Not really you simply find other customers - free market capitalism in action, isn't this in reality the Chinese model right now?

Rampant capitalists and Tories always see paying tax as a sacrifice!

You seem to have missed the point about laissez-faire (or, as you'd erroneously call it, "free market"icon_wink.gif.
In a culture where "commissions" are the norm, that's actually a "freedom" in that market and considered by some companies to be merely a cost to be factored-in.
Such companies will only ignore such markets if the "commissions" are too great, not because of any moral imperative.


China has a one-party government, Communist.
It deals with the world outside in a market economy.
It has opened its internal market more to market forces.

When even China embraces the power of a market economy but remains a communist state ... do you see now how your usual polarisation of opinions isn't valid?