India tells Britain: We don't want your aid

[OVER THE HILL]

India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9061844/India-tells-Britain-We-dont-want-your-aid.html

 

Britain has sent more than £1 billion of taxpayers’ money to India in the last five years and is planning to spend a further £600 million on Indian aid by 2015.Can somebody explain why this is going on ?

[alpine_saint]

To win that Eurofighter contract, primarily.

 

And now this week they've awarded exclusive negotiation rights to Dassault for the Rafale.

 

So I expect one of two things to happen :

 

1. Our overseas aid budget will be slashed to the tune of the Indian contribution

2. we re-bid for the Indian fighter requirement by the back door by an amount similar to the overseas aid amount

 

Apparently the whole marketing/bidding process from the Eurofighter side was a complete f**k up. The Germans wanted to be the main partner, and bizarrely despite the strong historical connection between the RAF and the Indian Air Force we let them do it. They totally screwed up the first stages (a load of arrogant German air force types turned up in India and either couldnt explain stuff and/or patronised the Indian officals) and BAE had to step into the marketing exercise for the Eurofighter to sort things out.

 

Apparently Indian officals are saying the Eurofighter isnt out of the competition yet, and Dassault have a history of screwing up the last stages of the negotiations. Loads of nations, including the likes of Switzerland and Brazil, have turned their back on the Rafale at the 11th hour.

 

Having said that, the UK and German government dragging their feet on approving the late Tranche improvements in radar and weapons carrying capacity for the Eurofighter apparently is not impressing the Indians.

 

Sorry, seems like a bit of a tangent I know, but it is the relevant background story.

[Colinjb]

Taking it on face value, 'fine by me.'

 

On a humanitarian level though, if we are looking after things that their own government isn't willing to, it would be remiss to just walk away.

[dubai_phil]

I lol'd.

 

Loved the provided TV's for schools one. Shame nobody thought to check if they had Electricity first

 

Slap in the face for a lot of Politicos.

 

How long before they start giving aid to the UK?

 

 

EU's been begging the Chinese for aid, so can't be long

[dubai_phil]

Taking it on face value, 'fine by me.'

 

On a humanitarian level though, if we are looking after things that their own government isn't willing to, it would be remiss to just walk away.

 

yep, providing the Buses with GPS systems in Bangalore before any buses in the UK got them was pretty important

[SOTONS EAST SIDE]

F*ck them lets get our money back, because obviously a new fighter plane is more worthy to spend money on, than their own poor!! Hang your Govt heads in shame, that money could be better spent in this country, and would not be classed as peanuts.FFS Arrogant indian t@ts.

[dune]

It's part of the Conservative psyche to help out nations that are less fortunate. This was the driving force behind our missionary endeavours throughout the centuries. Granted that colonialism was in our interests too, but we brought modern practices and we raised living standards. As Margaret Thatcher once said "Socialists would rather the poor were poorer so long as the gap between the rich and the poor was smaller".

[Verbal]

Part of the problem is that Indian elites HATE being reminded how dirt-poor the vast majority of their populace really is. There are more poor in India than in the 26 poorest countries in Africa. And it's a kind of poverty that takes your breath away. In one part of northern India, people survive on a diet of river rats.

 

Indian politicians also hate the way that DFID has been able, with some degree of success, to target the aid where it's needed, and keep it out of the greedy, corrupt clutches of those same Indian politicians.

 

Of course the Indian politicians should pay for this - they're clearly more than rich enough, given the horrendous levels of corruption they shamelessly indulge in. But they won't. There's more money to made from skimming a cut from deals like the one they've just made with the French.

 

The Tories are being naive, quite frankly, if they think that aid oils the wheels with such craven elites as those in India. You either do this kind of thing because you think it's right, or not at all.

Edited 5 February, 2012 by Verbal

[Saintandy666]

It's part of the Conservative psyche to help out nations that are less fortunate. This was the driving force behind our missionary endeavours throughout the centuries. Granted that colonialism was in our interests too, but we brought modern practices and we raised living standards. As Margaret Thatcher once said "Socialists would rather the poor were poorer so long as the gap between the rich and the poor was smaller".

 

That's not true at all. Even more so in modern socialism, which is quite happy for the rich to get richer, so long as a fair and progressive tax system is in place to redistribute a fair amount of their money to strong public services and the welfare state. Most socialists these days are quite comfortable with rich people, as long as they pay their way. For example, they'd be ****ed at the amount of tax avoidance that goes on.

[dune]

Part of the problem is that Indian elites HATE being reminded how dirt-poor the vast majority of their populace really is. There are more poor in India than in in the 26 poorest countries in Africa. And it's a kind of poverty that takes your breath away. In one part of northern India, people survive on a diet of river rats.

 

Indian politicians also hate the way that DFID has been able, with some degree of success, to target the aid where it's needed, and keep it out of the greedy, corrupt clutches of those same Indian politicians.

 

Of course the Indian politicians should pay for this - they're clearly more than rich enough, given the horrendous levels of corruption they shamelessly indulge in. But they won't. There's more money to made from skimming a cut from deals like the one they've just made with the French.

 

It's the same in Africa. Rhodesia is perfect example of how a country can deteriorate once a responsible government is removed.

[Colinjb]

yep, providing the Buses with GPS systems in Bangalore before any buses in the UK got them was pretty important

 

The key word is 'humanitarian,' that's just f**king stupid.

[dune]

That's not true at all. Even more so in modern socialism, which is quite happy for the rich to get richer, so long as a fair and progressive tax system is in place to redistribute a fair amount of their money to strong public services and the welfare state. Most socialists these days are quite comfortable with rich people, as long as they pay their way. For example, they'd be ****ed at the amount of tax avoidance that goes on.

 

Well it's certainly true of the Lounge Elite. They would rather the poor starve than the western powers intervene and bring stable governance. Harold Wilson is prime example of a Socialist with the blood of millions on his hands who have died prematurely thanks to his rushed scramble out of an Africa. What was needed was a gradual process whereby majority rule was phased in as and when given countries were ready for it. Due to the tribal divisions it was indirect genocide to abandon these people in the way we did.

[Saintandy666]

Well it's certainly true of the Lounge Elite. They would rather the poor starve than the western powers intervene and bring stable governance. Harold Wilson is prime example of a Socialist with the blood of millions on his hands who have died prematurely thanks to his rushed scramble out of an Africa. What was needed was a gradual process whereby majority rule was phased in as and when given countries were ready for it. Due to the tribal divisions it was indirect genocide to abandon these people in the way we did.

 

I really don't know how to respond to this. It's bizarre and again shows your irrational hate of left wing politics. And to be honest, we never should have been in Africa in the first place. And I honestly do not care what you say to that, but one group of people ruling over another group of people against their will is wrong.

[solentstars]

That's not true at all. Even more so in modern socialism, which is quite happy for the rich to get richer, so long as a fair and progressive tax syste

 

Well it's certainly true of the Lounge Elite. They would rather the poor starve than the western powers intervene and bring stable governance. Harold Wilson is prime example of a Socialist with the blood of millions on his hands who have died prematurely thanks to his rushed scramble out of an Africa. What was needed was a gradual process whereby majority rule was phased in as and when given countries were ready for it. Due to the tribal divisions it was indirect genocide to abandon these people in the way we did.

You really have one big chip on your shoulder .get a life and enjoy yourself and get yourself a women or some friends so you can relate to human beings.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

[dune]

I really don't know how to respond to this. It's bizarre and again shows your irrational hate of left wing politics. And to be honest, we never should have been in Africa in the first place. And I honestly do not care what you say to that, but one group of people ruling over another group of people against their will is wrong.

 

Oh dear. You are so naive. Colonialism was how it was back then and I am very proud of the fact that we were the best at it. If we hadn't been such a great power we'd have been speaking French in the 19th century and we'd have been speaking German today. It was a necessity at the time to be a power in the face of threats we faced. But that is all academic to the issue of how we withdrew from our Empire. It was a disaster and millions have died since because of Labour and how they scrambled to dismatle it. In some instances we had no choice in the face of nationalism, but in other instances such as Rhodesia there was a strong government that was good for the people. Ian smith knew his country - he was an African afterall, but we couldn't allow him to gradually move the country forward as and when the tribal conditions dictated it was feasible. The result of the unmanaged exit is the mess we see today with a country that was once the bread basket of Africa, with edication and medical care for all, in turmoil with people starving. dieing of treatable illnesses and being murdered for not toeing the zanu line. And now we've gone who has stepped in? It's the Chinese - the bastions of humans rights.

Edited 5 February, 2012 by dune

[dune]

You really have one big chip on your shoulder .get a life and enjoy yourself and get yourself a women or some friends so you can relate to human beings.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

 

*note how the left start hurling insults when their eastern block ideologies provide no answers*

[Saintandy666]

Oh dear. You are so naive. Colonialism was how it was back then and I am very proud of the fact that we were the best at it. If we hadn't been such a great power we'd have been speaking French in the 19th century and we'd have been speaking German today. It was a necessity at the time to be a power in the face of threats we faced. But that is all academic to the issue of how we withdrew from our Empire. It was a disaster and millions have died since because of Labour and how they scrambled to dismatle it. In some instances we had no choice in the face of nationalism, but in other instances such as Rhodesia there was a strong government that was good for the people. Ian smith knew his country - he was an African afterall, but we couldn't allow him to gradually move the country forward as and when the tribal conditions dictated it was feasible. The result of the unmanaged exit is the mess we see today with a country that was once the bread basket of Africa, with edication and medical care for all, in turmoil with people starving. dieing of treatable illnesses and being murdered for not toeing the zanu line. And now we've gone who has stepped in? It's the Chinese - the bastions of humans rights.

 

Because Colonial Britain was really all about upholding human rights, was it? No, it was about exploitation, pure and simple. We wanted to use their resources to gain profit for ourselves, and others were driven by the so called 'White man's burden'. Either way, the only reason we all 'had' to do it was because everyone was doing it, but that doesn't make it right. For one, I believe we have now moved on since then in our culture and our ways, and so there is no need to cling to our past and force ourselves to justify what we did. I'm not saying we have to apologise, to apologise for what our ancestors did is stupid, but there is no need to glorify it as something driven by something it wasn't. I repeat again, forcibly overtaking and ruling other people is wrong.

[dune]

Because Colonial Britain was really all about upholding human rights, was it? No, it was about exploitation, pure and simple. We wanted to use their resources to gain profit for ourselves, and others were driven by the so called 'White man's burden'. Either way, the only reason we all 'had' to do it was because everyone was doing it, but that doesn't make it right. For one, I believe we have now moved on since then in our culture and our ways, and so there is no need to cling to our past and force ourselves to justify what we did. I'm not saying we have to apologise, to apologise for what our ancestors did is stupid, but there is no need to glorify it as something driven by something it wasn't. I repeat again, forcibly overtaking and ruling other people is wrong.

 

What has all that waffle got to do with anything?

 

We needed to be a colonial power back in the day to survive aswell as to flourish. It had to happen and you should be grateful it did or we'd have lost to Napoleon and Hitler.

 

Labour f/cked up in the uncontrolled way we exited and this resulted in millions of deaths through famine, genocide and lack of medical treatment because of subsequent poor governance.

 

These are the facts Andy. It doesn't suit you I know, but that is how it was and that is how it is.

Edited 5 February, 2012 by dune

[Saint_Jonny]

What has all that waffle got to do with anything?

 

Guilt.

[dune]

Guilt.

 

Please explain because unless you're agreeing with me i'll always win this argument because i'm right.

[Saint_Jonny]

Please explain because unless you're agreeing with me i'll always win this argument because i'm right.

 

I was implying that Saintandy666 may have thought these were "guilt" payments, or at least using the idea of colonial guilt as means to justify the payments in his own mind.

 

My opinion is simply **** em', if they say they don't need it don't give it to the ungrateful idiots. A country with the level of famine, lawlessness and inequality on India's scale doesn't need nuclear weapons or a ****ing space program. It needs to get its priorities right.

 

How you can say colonialism is "just how it was back in the day" is laughable dune. While the world can seem over PC at times, its difficult to argue that the rules we live by today are of a better "human standard" than 100 years ago. Mistakes have to be made to learn what is right and what is wrong. We wouldn't dream of "colonising" somewhere now, what we called colonising back then is called invasion today, dune. Germany and Poland...Argentina and the Falklands (its sad that we even think we have a claim to them IMO)...Iraq and Kuwait. Its exploitation.

Edited 5 February, 2012 by Saint_Jonny
I can't spell!

[Saintandy666]

What has all that waffle got to do with anything?

 

We needed to be a colonial power back in the day to survive aswell as to flourish. It had to happen and you should be grateful it did or we'd have lost to Napoleon and Hitler.

 

Labour f/cked up in the uncontrolled way we exited and this resulted in millions of deaths through famine, genocide and lack of medical treatment because of subsequent poor governance.

 

These are the facts Andy. It doesn't suit you I know, but that is how it was and that is how it is.

 

You have missed my point entirely. I am not trying to say that that wasn't how it used to be, and so that was how we were. I'm not trying to deny that. I'm just saying that doesn't justify something that is morally wrong! Colonialism is wrong.

 

Labour had no choice about exiting, we were broke and the Empire was no longer profitable. For example, India's profitability fell throughout the 30's and 40's and the US laced us with debt so we had to give up the empire. Nothing to do with ****ing up, just a world war. Suffice to say, we never should have been there in the first place. Colonialism is wrong.

[Hockey_saint]

None of you appear to know much about european colonialism...in general really. The Rhodesia example is a bit of a misanoma because whilst, yes, it was a self-controlling colony, it had very little to actually do with the British government and a great deal more to do with Cecil Rhodes, Frederick Bernham, Selous and that lovely man who has a statue of him sat in the docks in Poole, one Baden Powell.

 

I actually did a major a-level project on the scramble for Africa and specifically The Ndbele and Shona tribes /Zambesia/Rhodesia and I can tell you now, whilst it is true Spain, Portugal, the Dutch and to an extent the newcomers Germany had already made their way into the interior, chiefly for greater numbers of slaves, gold and land, Britain was most definately there too; in fact they had no excuse to be on the west coast whatsoever. Anyway, I digress, Britain sub-contracted the taking of what was to become Rhodesia to Rhodes's company who won with the maxim gun (side issue here, but did you know Rhodes was often quoted as saying "I prefer land over n*ggers"? and that just about sets the tone for the country named after him, a bunch of racist whites who thought the black man was most definately inferior to them).

 

So please, don't use Rhodesia as an example because even to Apartheid South Africa, a country with the maximum of 120,000 people rulling 32 million was a joke, a very racist one too and on that point, considering (albeit, railways, a language and a bringing together like the Danes forced the Saxons to do to create England) how badly we treated India, I'm surprised they even wanted to deal with us in the first place.

 

And Dune, I've actually just finished "Bitter Harvest: the great betrayel" by the late Ian Douglas Smith so don't think I'm not aware of both sides of THAT matter.

[dune]

You have missed my point entirely. I am not trying to say that that wasn't how it used to be, and so that was how we were. I'm not trying to deny that. I'm just saying that doesn't justify something that is morally wrong! Colonialism is wrong.

 

Labour had no choice about exiting, we were broke and the Empire was no longer profitable. For example, India's profitability fell throughout the 30's and 40's and the US laced us with debt so we had to give up the empire. Nothing to do with ****ing up, just a world war. Suffice to say, we never should have been there in the first place. Colonialism is wrong.

 

I did say that in some instances we had no choice but exit in an uncontrolled manner, but Rhodesia was different.

 

And you are wrong when you say we shouldn't have had an empire. It was completely necessary in those days because if we hadn't been the power then France would have filled that void and we'd have been conquered by them. Therefore Colonialism was the right thing to do in those days and furthermore China is doing it now. They are propping up puppet leaders. These puppet leaders need China. What we are seeing now is a copy of the east india/south africa company model. Eventually China will go the full hog and they will be a colonial power. That is how it works Andy. That is how it's always worked throughout history. Just look at how China doesn't give a sh/t about what we say now - it's coming you mark my words.

[Saintandy666]

I did say that in some instances we had no choice but exit in an uncontrolled manner, but Rhodesia was different.

 

And you are wrong when you say we shouldn't have had an empire. It was completely necessary in those days because if we hadn't been the power then France would have filled that void and we'd have been conquered by them. Therefore Colonialism was the right thing to do in those days and furthermore China is doing it now. They are propping up puppet leaders. These puppet leaders need China. What we are seeing now is a copy of the east india/south africa company model. Eventually China will go the full hog and they will be a colonial power. That is how it works Andy. That is how it's always worked throughout history. Just look at how China doesn't give a sh/t about what we say now - it's coming you mark my words.

 

You aren't listening to a word I am saying and still continue to seem to support the principle of colonialism, which lets face it is wrong and exploitative as well as racist.

 

And today's empires are cultural and financial, not physical. That's because of capitalism.

[alpine_saint]

Oh, wow. Everyone has actually ignored the real motivations and events behind this story, as posted by me in order to bang on against each other with their pet idealologies.

 

What a bloody surprise....

[solentstars]

*note how the left start hurling insults when their eastern block ideologies provide no answers*

 

Grow up

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

[ribbo]

Oh, wow. Everyone has actually ignored the real motivations and events behind this story, as posted by me in order to bang on against each other with their pet idealologies.

 

What a bloody surprise....

 

good points raised Alpine, these aid packages are aid bungs or deal sweetners, it's pretty easy to read between the lines.

 

Expert Trolling from Dune also, cant believe everyone falls for it /o\

[OVER THE HILL]

Oh, wow. Everyone has actually ignored the real motivations and events behind this story, as posted by me in order to bang on against each other with their pet idealologies.

 

What a bloody surprise....

 

Agree with Alps on this !

 

Going back to my original post,would it not make more sense if the money was spent on airplanes for the RAF rather than pretend it was aid money ?

[alpine_saint]

Agree with Alps on this !

 

Going back to my original post,would it not make more sense if the money was spent on airplanes for the RAF rather than pretend it was aid money ?

 

Indeed. Effect would be the same, keep the Eurofighter production line open.

 

Would have also paid for another Type 45 destroyer, or another Astute, or conversion of the second carrier to CATOBAR like the first, or a wing of F-18Es to get the new carriers operational earlier...

[This Charming Man]

I've always found it strange that we give aid to a country that has a space programme...

[Saintandy666]

I've always found it strange that we give aid to a country that has a space programme...

 

Space program's are very profitable.

 

Also, India has some of the poorest people in the world.

[Ken Tone]

Oh, wow. Everyone has actually ignored the real motivations and events behind this story, as posted by me in order to bang on against each other with their pet idealologies.

 

What a bloody surprise....

 

Quite. Yet another thread taken over by Dune's politics.

 

To return to the original topic --

 

What I just can't understand about India is that it has huge numbers of really wealthy people, and has a succesful and fast-growing economy -- above the UK in purchasing power, and not far below in GDP terms -- yet seems unwilling to look after its own poor. The sums don't add up. With a fair taxation system they ought to be able to provide enough for all their population without any foreign aid.

[Verbal]

Quite. Yet another thread taken over by Dune's politics.

 

To return to the original topic --

 

What I just can't understand about India is that it has huge numbers of really wealthy people, and has a succesful and fast-growing economy -- above the UK in purchasing power, and not far below in GDP terms -- yet seems unwilling to look after its own poor. The sums don't add up. With a fair taxation system they ought to be able to provide enough for all their population without any foreign aid.

 

It's because the elites and the burgeoning middle class have long ago pulled up the drawbridge. Untouchables may not exist in name, but they certainly persist in reality; they are rendered invisible to the elites, who simply imagine them into non-existence. This weird psychological self-deception is at the heart of the Indian objection to foreign aid. (It was evident, for example, when the Indian film actor Amitabh Bachchan complained about Slumdog Millionaire's featuring supposedly mythical Mumbai slums.)

 

The drawbridge is kept up by other means. For example, if you try to buy even the most modest bungalow in a well-heeled part of New Delhi, it will cost an absolute fortune, even by London standards. But the actual price declared for taxation will be a small fraction. One of the weird consequences of this is that few property owners in Delhi hold legal title to their expensively acquired homes. But the most important thing is to buy the prestige of a home in the right place but without paying any but a small fraction of the tax due - tax that, if raised, could have (emphasise 'could') gone to alleviate India's truly epic levels of absolute poverty, and its attendant consequences such a malnutrition, and a host of health problems including physical deformity and diseases that have been eradicated in most other parts of the world.

[This Charming Man]

Space program's are very profitable.

 

Also, India has some of the poorest people in the world.

 

Having visited India myself I'm fully aware of that. Though it's not our problem that wealth is so unevenly distributed.

[alpine_saint]

Quite. Yet another thread taken over by Dune's politics.

 

To return to the original topic --

 

What I just can't understand about India is that it has huge numbers of really wealthy people, and has a succesful and fast-growing economy -- above the UK in purchasing power, and not far below in GDP terms -- yet seems unwilling to look after its own poor. The sums don't add up. With a fair taxation system they ought to be able to provide enough for all their population without any foreign aid.

 

Verbal is equally culpable, Ken.

[Verbal]

Verbal is equally culpable, Ken.

 

Of what, my fat little friend?

[derry]

It's bloody ridiculous borrowing money to give it away. OK if we don't have borrowings and lots of money spare then foreign aid is reasonable but to increase our debt mountain, have quantitative easing, strip our military to the bone, cut backs across the board is just ridiculous. Sort out the problems in the UK first. It's also a gravy train for a large number of unnecessary bureaucrats.

Edited 6 February, 2012 by derry

[Sour Mash]

Space program's are very profitable.

 

Also, India has some of the poorest people in the world.

Where would this forum be without you Andy?

[Turkish]

Having visited India myself I'm fully aware of that. Though it's not our problem that wealth is so unevenly distributed.

 

Seeing it first hand is no substitute for hearing about it on Question Time.

[Sour Mash]

Quite. Yet another thread taken over by Dune's politics.

 

To return to the original topic --

 

What I just can't understand about India is that it has huge numbers of really wealthy people, and has a succesful and fast-growing economy -- above the UK in purchasing power, and not far below in GDP terms -- yet seems unwilling to look after its own poor. The sums don't add up. With a fair taxation system they ought to be able to provide enough for all their population without any foreign aid.

We don't give ourselves enough credit in this country for our charitable, philanthropic approach to the world. I think we are one of, if not, the highest, charity donators per head in the world. Throughout history we have lead the world in the provision of housing, sanitation, education to those less fortunate. India, for a number of reasons, does not have that same approach.

 

The UK giving aid to India is ridiculous and should be stopped as soon as possible.

[buctootim]

The UK giving aid to India is ridiculous and should be stopped as soon as possible.

 

Thats the fundamental question though. Do you give directly to people are desperately poor and need it bypassing their ****ty government - or do you only give to countries which have poor but progressive governments who are trying to improve the lot of their people.

[Sour Mash]

We don't give ourselves enough credit in this country for our charitable, philanthropic approach to the world. I think we are one of, if not, the highest, charity donators per head in the world. Throughout history we have lead the world in the provision of housing, sanitation, education to those less fortunate. India, for a number of reasons, does not have that same approach.

 

The UK giving aid to India is ridiculous and should be stopped as soon as possible.

I guess there is the argument that by us giving aid, we could almost embarrass the wealthier Indians into doing something? The problem is the sheer scale of the problem in that country - how much difference would the money we give really make, even if given directly?

 

Something I've always wondered and hopefully someone more clued up on India than me could answer. Throughout history, most countries with such large disparities between rich and poor, with so many millions of urban poor living close together, either rise and up and revolt against their ruling elite, turn to extereme politics (either left or right wing) or there is a high level of violent crime, robberies etc (see Jo'Burg or Rio). But that just doesn't seem to even be close to happening in India. I know there are incidents of social unrest (I remember riots in Navi Mumbai when I was over there), but really nothing significant in the grand scheme of things.

 

Is it because of the caste system, that everyone has the belief that if you're born into a lower caste, its as a result of a previous life, but if you get your head down and work hard, behave etc, you might get it better in your next life?

[Seaford Saint]

It's part of the Conservative psyche to help out nations that are less fortunate. This was the driving force behind our missionary endeavours throughout the centuries. Granted that colonialism was in our interests too, but we brought modern practices and we raised living standards. As Margaret Thatcher once said "Socialists would rather the poor were poorer so long as the gap between the rich and the poor was smaller".

 

Provide me with some examples please of the Conservative psyche?

[dune]

Seeing it first hand is no substitute for hearing about it on Question Time.

 

 

The draw of the Lounge Elite was too much for you.

[Turkish]

 

The draw of the Lounge Elite was too much for you.

 

Well, might as well get my monies worth, i've paid for the priviledge to post on here, be like refusing to go to St Marys because everyone around me is a c*ck.

[latter day saint]

Well, might as well get my monies worth, i've paid for the priviledge to post on here, be like refusing to go to St Marys because everyone around me is a c*ck.

FFS ! picked your dummy back up then ?

[shurlock]

 

The draw of the Lounge Elite was too much for you.

 

Terry and June have been reunited - fantastic news.

[aintforever]

Thats the fundamental question though. Do you give directly to people are desperately poor and need it bypassing their ****ty government - or do you only give to countries which have poor but progressive governments who are trying to improve the lot of their people.

 

But surely by giving them aid you encourage their sh!tty government to be even more corrupt?

 

It's completely bonkers giving aid to India, I would have thought the Tories would have put a stop to it.

[buctootim]

But surely by giving them aid you encourage their sh!tty government to be even more corrupt?

 

It's completely bonkers giving aid to India, I would have thought the Tories would have put a stop to it.

 

Im not saying we should give to India as theres no shortage of places where real need exists. Aid to India is a pretty amoral game anyway. Their government tries to pretend it doesnt need it because India is now a prosperous modern country where western companies should come and invest (no flies and no begging no sirree) whilst the British government uses aid as a lever to try and secure export contracts for UK companies.

Edited 6 February, 2012 by buctootim