Comments on: Telling the unvarnished truth about government “aid”

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:00:33 +0000

Lord Peter Bauer proved many years ago that government “aid” was a demented idea (see “Dissent on Development” and many other works).

The only good thing about the 12 billion Pound gvovernment overseas aid deparment is that it was as nice visual aid showing that the British government had no intention of getting its spending under control.

If the British government (Cameron, Clegg and the rest of the nonenities) had any real intention of getting government spending under contol the first thing they would have done is to ABOLISH this absurd overseas aid departement (and then gone to abolish the department of “Culture, Media and Sport” and then “Trade and Insustry” and then on and on).

Instead they INCREASED the government aid budget (partly at the urgeing of a certain nasty little man who has been in the news recently).

Therefore the government borrowing figures that came out last week (which showed that govenrment spending is totally out of control) should have come as a shock to nobody.

Cameron, Clegg and so on never had any intention of getting government spending under control – the department of overseas aid was indeed a useful visual aid showing that.

By: Ernie G

Ernie G — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:52:10 +0000

I am sure that there are happy exceptions, but my impression is that in many cases the aid funds things like vanity airlines, layers of corrupt bureaucrats, palaces, Mercedes Benzes, and Swiss or Cayman Islands bank accounts.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:14:46 +0000

Surely as regards this UK governent’s (ring fenced) aid programme, it was all about ‘detoxifying’ the Tory brand, which iDave has put above all other priorities.

By: Runcie Balspune

Runcie Balspune — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 06:52:17 +0000

that India still needs Britain’s help

Came across this article the other day:
http://asq.org/qualitynews/qnt/execute/displaySetup?newsID=14519

“The problem is that you can see now in looking back, once you move your manufacturing offshore, you’re training your supplier to become your competitor,” said Lou Lenzi, general manager of design for GE Appliances.

Having been subject to IT outsourcing, I can’t help thinking this is just the same thing applies to India. Once your benefactor becomes a competitor, then surely it is time to stop giving.

By: Shockwave's logically considered opinion of Michael Bay's cinematic atrocities

Shockwave's logically considered opinion of Michael Bay's cinematic atrocities — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:50:51 +0000

Wrong. It’s corporate welfare disguised as “aid”; bung a few fat bribes of taxpayer’s money to foreign governments so British companies get lucrative contracts. Why do you think Cameron and co visit India to “drum up support” for Brit business, even though that is not the job of the government.

Indeed, why do our politicians travel abroad anywhere; in this age of video-conferencing, there is no need for summits or embassies.

Anyhow, Germany’s vastly superior public transport is already subsidised by British taxpayers and long-suffering commuters, so India isn’t that much of a stretch in terms of Government policy, given we subsidise Germany.

By: Wolfie

Wolfie — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:29:30 +0000

Britain’s foreign aid target is based on nothing to do with the benefits or otherwise accruing to the recipients. It is a sacrifice designed to demonstrate the moral worthiness of the donor.

It is just like carbon targets – a religious devotion to the green religion which must be made regardless of the ineffectiveness of doing so on the supposed evil it is meant to prevent.

By: The Sanity Inspector

The Sanity Inspector — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:06:42 +0000

Britain’s overseas aid might also be a matter of influence-buying. That could not be defended or even acknowledged out loud, but it would be more understandable than the present explanation, that India still needs Britain’s help.