|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 28, 2019 18:34:21 GMT
Free trade will help these countries more than cash. Fundamentally disagree. The money doesn't make it to the people. Mixture of profits going to Western investors and poor governance. I find myself cautiously with Vibe on this. (Can't tag them btw - have they deleted themselves or something?) Aid money very often doesn't go to the people either; it appears at least as easy to set up a corrupt administration that siphons off aid as to set up a social and economic model that concentrates wealth in hands of an elite, in fact not only can you do both, the one probably reinforces the other. Even if aid does reach the people it can be a form of patronage by the government. I think neilm has some experience in this field but my brother's comment from having worked in non-financial aid (free expertise to Commonwealth countries) was that US aid in particular is heavily beneficial to Western companies - "we'll pay for this hospital but all the kit has to be bought from US companies". I think genuine free trade is more open to people in those countries making money for themselves through small enterprises. Not that I rule out aid altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 28, 2019 18:53:47 GMT
Interesting from Ashcroft poll. "And at the next general election… Only one in three (32%) of 2017 Tories who switched to the Brexit Party said they would come home at the next general election; 52% currently say they will stay with the Brexit Party. Conservatives who switched to the Lib Dems say they are even more likely to stay put: 61% now say they will vote Lib Dem again at the general election, with only 22% saying they expect to return to the Tories. Overall, only 43% of 2017 Conservative voters who turned out in the European elections say they will vote Tory at the next general election." Of course people say these things but don't always mean it. But if true, it weirdly means that the Conservative Party at the next election has to look for loyalty from people who couldn't be bothered to vote for them in the Euros. Not as daft as it sounds, since that would include those who decided they couldn't support the party in an election they regarded as meaningless, but weren't prepared to go so far as to vote for someone else. Agreed, and nobody should believe these figures as indicating anything that will actually happen. That said, it is likely that there will be Tories lost long term to BP and others lost long term to Lib Dems, and the numbers in each case will be substantial if nowhere near those Ashcroft figures. My guess is that the Tories will have incurred a long term loss of 20-25%% of their 2017 vote, and if the new leader is a hardline Brexiteer most of those losses will be to the LDs. In the unlikely event that they choose a less committed leader to the Europhobic faith their losses to BP would be a great deal bigger still. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,731
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 28, 2019 19:02:01 GMT
Fundamentally disagree. The money doesn't make it to the people. Mixture of profits going to Western investors and poor governance. I find myself cautiously with vibe ( Vibe) on this. (Can't tag them btw - have they deleted themselves or something?) FTFY |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,429
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on May 28, 2019 20:21:08 GMT
Fundamentally disagree. The money doesn't make it to the people. Mixture of profits going to Western investors and poor governance. I find myself cautiously with Vibe on this. (Can't tag them btw - have they deleted themselves or something?) Aid money very often doesn't go to the people either; it appears at least as easy to set up a corrupt administration that siphons off aid as to set up a social and economic model that concentrates wealth in hands of an elite, in fact not only can you do both, the one probably reinforces the other. Even if aid does reach the people it can be a form of patronage by the government. I think neilm has some experience in this field but my brother's comment from having worked in non-financial aid (free expertise to Commonwealth countries) was that US aid in particular is heavily beneficial to Western companies - "we'll pay for this hospital but all the kit has to be bought from US companies". I think genuine free trade is more open to people in those countries making money for themselves through small enterprises. Not that I rule out aid altogether. Aid has plenty of problems. But free trade is equally no panacea. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 28, 2019 20:37:06 GMT
I find myself cautiously with Vibe on this. (Can't tag them btw - have they deleted themselves or something?) Aid money very often doesn't go to the people either; it appears at least as easy to set up a corrupt administration that siphons off aid as to set up a social and economic model that concentrates wealth in hands of an elite, in fact not only can you do both, the one probably reinforces the other. Even if aid does reach the people it can be a form of patronage by the government. I think neilm has some experience in this field but my brother's comment from having worked in non-financial aid (free expertise to Commonwealth countries) was that US aid in particular is heavily beneficial to Western companies - "we'll pay for this hospital but all the kit has to be bought from US companies". I think genuine free trade is more open to people in those countries making money for themselves through small enterprises. Not that I rule out aid altogether. Aid has plenty of problems. But free trade is equally no panacea. Nothing is, Mike. Poor governance and corruption will screw up most things for a start. I believe in both an element of state intervention and in foreign aid, but I still feel trade is the bigger engine of growth. The thing about aid vs free trade is that the former is more selfish by the donor country - they do not put their own producers at risk of competition, they can insist the money is spent on their own products, it employs civil servants/aid workers from the donor country, they control what the money is spent on, they get diplomatic leverage. Also a sense of self-satisfaction and the right to make judgements about the deserving and undeserving poor of nations. |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050 
|
Post by middyman on May 28, 2019 20:47:05 GMT
Aid has plenty of problems. But free trade is equally no panacea. Nothing is, Mike. Poor governance and corruption will screw up most things for a start. I believe in both an element of state intervention and in foreign aid, but I still feel trade is the bigger engine of growth. The thing about aid vs free trade is that the former is more selfish by the donor country - they do not put their own producers at risk of competition, they can insist the money is spent on their own products, it employs civil servants/aid workers from the donor country, they control what the money is spent on, they get diplomatic leverage. Also a sense of self-satisfaction and the right to make judgements about the deserving and undeserving poor of nations. After a local party AGM, our MP spoke to us and this is the text of an email I sent to her: Further to a comment you made yesterday evening, I have no idea what was said by your new Young Conservatives group about foreign aid, but I do know that it is not a popular policy and at a time of cuts in virtually all areas of Government, to have preserved the foreign aid budget has proved politically damaging. It is difficult to justify building hospitals in Harare and Bogata, for example, when you say you cannot afford to build them in Harlow and Bury St Edmunds. You also commented that the Corbyn way was to tax and then tell the electorate how they were going to spend their money. This is what is happening with foreign aid. Taxes are being used on the causes the Government chooses. This is the only way to operate in areas such as defence, education, health, infrastructure, security and social security, but I think foreign aid could be made more inclusive. Personally, I am happy to donate. I have completed two child sponsorships and currently have a standing order in favour of Future Hope (www.futurehope.net). In other words, I have been prepared to put my money where my mouth is, but I am not convinced that I should have someone else, i.e. the Government, tell me where to spend my money. Other countries make foreign aid work for them far more than we do in the UK. Rightly or wrongly, we have a treaty commitment to spend so much on foreign aid and I have long been thinking on how we need to reform what we do. I do not know whether donations to charities which work overseas count towards our total. My first step would be to abolish the Department lock stock and barrel. This would save on rent, civil servants, and, dare I say it, ministerial salaries. Secondly, I would count donations to “overseas” charities as part of our overall total for the purpose of treaty obligations if this is not already the case. Thirdly, I would try to promote the concept of a partnership between the Government and the citizen in the matter of foreign aid. I would match fund by the Government individual donations, and keep Gift Aid on the individual’s payments. I would “market” this by saying that rather than the Government deciding, you the citizen would be deciding which causes to support. I would be tempted to increase my standing order to Future Hope I think. If the Chancellor were worried about the possible cost, then individual limits could be applied. I suspect that such match funding would still leave us substantially short of our international obligation. I would divide that balance three ways. The first tranche would go to the Foreign Office to be used exclusively charitably but in countries for causes which promoted the UK’s interests. The second would go to the Department of Foreign Trade to be used exclusively charitably but in countries for causes which promoted the UK’s trade interests. The third variable tranche would go to the Prime Minister as a slush fund immediately available to be spent on some urgent overseas disaster relief – earthquake, tsunami, etc. This would enable the Prime Minister of the day to gain some political qudos if done well and with due fanfares. I do not believe that administration would be a large burden on either the charities or the Government in that it could be “tacked on” to Gift Aid claims. It would need to be stressed that the scheme was not “new money” from the Government and would not increase the total sum going from the UK in foreign aid, just an adjustment in how it was spent. Domestic charities might perceive a disadvantage although I think that would be illusory. I think that if the electorate could see that they were able to affect where the aid budget was going and that the rest was working for the UK, they would be more reconciled to it. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on May 29, 2019 2:53:00 GMT
Nothing is, Mike. Poor governance and corruption will screw up most things for a start. I believe in both an element of state intervention and in foreign aid, but I still feel trade is the bigger engine of growth. The thing about aid vs free trade is that the former is more selfish by the donor country - they do not put their own producers at risk of competition, they can insist the money is spent on their own products, it employs civil servants/aid workers from the donor country, they control what the money is spent on, they get diplomatic leverage. Also a sense of self-satisfaction and the right to make judgements about the deserving and undeserving poor of nations. After a local party AGM, our MP spoke to us and this is the text of an email I sent to her: Further to a comment you made yesterday evening, I have no idea what was said by your new Young Conservatives group about foreign aid, but I do know that it is not a popular policy and at a time of cuts in virtually all areas of Government, to have preserved the foreign aid budget has proved politically damaging. It is difficult to justify building hospitals in Harare and Bogata, for example, when you say you cannot afford to build them in Harlow and Bury St Edmunds. Do we still send aid to Romania? Or did you perhaps mean Bogata, Texas?? Anyway this thread quickly went off topic. My MP has stated that he's in favour of a more flexible and dynamic approach that meets the UK's ever-changing diplomatic and security needs. He wasn't in the Commons yet when the budget was ringfenced and fixed as a percentage of GDP. Though given how loyal to the whip he's been, I doubt he'd vote for any change to the present arrangement unless it were to become official party policy. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 29, 2019 7:26:17 GMT
Aid has plenty of problems. But free trade is equally no panacea. Nothing is, Mike. Poor governance and corruption will screw up most things for a start.I believe in both an element of state intervention and in foreign aid, but I still feel trade is the bigger engine of growth. The thing about aid vs free trade is that the former is more selfish by the donor country - they do not put their own producers at risk of competition, they can insist the money is spent on their own products, it employs civil servants/aid workers from the donor country, they control what the money is spent on, they get diplomatic leverage. Also a sense of self-satisfaction and the right to make judgements about the deserving and undeserving poor of nations. The conventional wisdom these days, as a result of experience in the past, is that "capacity building" is the most effective sort of aid. This enhances the ability to generate things to trade, as well as a climate allowing individuals to better themselves, and a government capable of providing public services. However this is much less visible than a new highway, provides less jobs in the aid provider, and success is much harder to measure. Building capacity, rather than taking over and running aid projects yourself to prevent corruption, also requires some tolerance of misapplication of funds. |
|
