Thread: The Anti-Foreign aiders are harming Britain: They must be delighted.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Baron von Lotsov: Is this the best that you can do? I have said on many occasions that I dislike the Arms Trade, and I have also spoken in public about it. However, manufacturing is our second most lucrative foreign currency earner. BAC is the dominant 'player' in the aerospace business and, not surprisingly, they are also major arms suppliers. That is the reality; warts and all. Nations have political and business objectives and the realisation of them often involves persuading and compensating those nations who will co-operate with them. The USA after WW2, for example, imposed physical-controls, as they were called, on exports to communist countries. Their means of realising that objective was with Marshall Aid, capital investment, cheap loans, and import absorbtion. We also, because of our association with nations who formerly had comprised the Empire, acted similarly to the USA, albeit to a lesser extent. These arrangements, which included bilateral aid, were negotiated and concluded with the respective de jure governments in various countries. The Aid Budget is well publicised and discussed. It can be challenged, and subject to legal and political pressures by institutions and the electorate generally.


Lord Pearson's former company in Costa Rica, bribed a government official to allocate insurance business to them to the detriment of others. It was unofficial and illegal in Both Britain and Costa Rica. As a consequence Pearson's CEO was prosecuted and given a custodial sentence of (I think) about ten months. Do you seriously confess that the difference between a government agreement, and an individual criminal act by a corrupt company servant, is a difference which you cannot comprehend? Yes I can see the difference, and any court in the Land would agree its difference to be substantial and indisputable.

rjt: Your statement is not an argument but a confession: confess it to your priest next Friday.

I think actually its a fair point that if we are to give aid to countries we need to see tangible reform from them, if a country can afford a space project one has to argue that perhaps they should be using that money better to help the appaling poverty in there country.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

rjt: You can help and influence a nation, but demanding particular objectives would not be very effective. We governed India for about two and a half centuries, we also improved their infrastructure ; railways, for example, but they were still in extreme poverty when given independence in 1947. Why were we so ineffective at curing all their ills? India had been an economic super-power in the 18th C: it is arguable that India was more harmed by Imperialism than any other country. These are not simple issues; they are very complex, and patience is needed in abundance.

I agree these issues are not easy, not are the economic problems facing Britain today. In times of financial austerity, or at least when governments are attemtping to control spending then government ministers are finding it hard to justify decisions such as this, if you watched Alan Duncan's incompetant performance on question time last week I am sure you would agree his response was pathetic when we have benefits being cut in this country to dole out money to countrys who are wealthy enough to afford space programs, when times are tough luxerys are sacrificed and money spent on things that are neccesary.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

rjt: If Britain is having a hard time now, we will be worse served if we end-up losing any influence in the developing world; particularly those with mineral deposits of every kind. The manufacturing capacity has gone to Asia; the mineral deposits are going in the same direction. Our only use at the present is as a 'customer market' for Asian goods. These issues are multi-dimensional and they are not solved with simplistic solutions. Stop foreign aid if you wish, there are many others willing to replace us. Foreign aid, of every kind, accounts for less than 0.7% of GDP. The net savings in economic terms would be virtually nil.

That is the establishment argument next you will be saying the bankers should keep their mega payouts. How are governments going to ever relate to the public and how are we going to get people intrested in politics again.

Originally Posted by rjt

That is the establishment argument next you will be saying the bankers should keep their mega payouts. How are governments going to ever relate to the public and how are we going to get people intrested in politics again.

The public are generally stupid. They have been dumbed down for many years by the education system and the BBC etc. They do not understand how things work, and when we have populist politicians like Nigel Farage standing up trying to make out everything is simple then it makes things harder.

I see this in the Telegraph blogs and who gets the highest number of recommendations. You can say the populist thing and you can engage in personal attacks on public figures and get very high ratings. The more complicated your post is the less well received it is generally. I have been experimenting on Con Home as well and it is a similar picture. People don't rate sophisticated arguments and scientific balance. They are drawn to the simple and the emotive. OK I must admit the Telegraph is one of the least like that and I do find I get a few people who respect a good argument or bringing up an original point, but that's not particularly typical. I think your middle England is like your Express reader.

You can't have a proper democracy unless you have a properly educated electorate, and by that I mean proper in the sense of true learning, not the political indoctrination that education has become. Interestingly the Tories seem to be attacking this problem by freeing it up from central control. Anyhow if people aren’t interested in politics then they shouldn’t blame it for doing something they disagree with.

Originally Posted by Luigi

To get something in return, but what exactly is Britain getting in return from India for all of its investment? I'd rather the money we give in foreign aid went into improving the lives of everyone living in Britain.

I guess I will have to wait and work harder to give you a positive rep for that...*sigh*