Geoffrey Bloom
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
However if you're really are that thick and blinkered, use google, I'm not here to educate you.
Last edited by jonc; Aug 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM.
I think you know already. Sure it't not perfect and there are pitfalls, but for someone who can see through all the negativity and rhetoric surrounding immigration can do the same with regards to what foreign aid does and represents.
However if you're really are that thick and blinkered, use google.
However if you're really are that thick and blinkered, use google.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
What's the point, there would be no rational or meaningful discussion as proven with most of your past efforts. We both know you'll only interpret whatever I type as "tory" drivel for you to delight in picking apart after which, as the dialogue continues, your argument weakens and it inevitably spirals downwards to ad hominem which does nothing but undermines your point of view. I don't feel like getting drawn into that, not today at least.
What's the point, there would be no rational or meaningful discussion as proven with most of your past efforts. We both know you'll only interpret whatever I type as "tory" drivel for you to delight in picking apart after which, as the dialogue continues, your argument weakens and it inevitably spirals downwards to ad hominem which does nothing but undermines your point of view. I don't feel like getting drawn into that, not today at least.
You would of course have said it stimulates economic growth in countries less developed than our own such that:
a) their people have a better standard of living
b) they will trade with us.
This is of course BS as:
a) the money rarely reaches those who need it due to corrupt governments and regimes (not that our own is much better)
b) there is no real hard evidence pointing to this connection
c) a lot of our aid goes to countries either as well developed as our own, better off than us or who see fit to have huge military arsenals while their people starve
and finally
d) some become dependent on the aid rather than using it to make themlseves more self sufficient!
Aside from that it's a great idea. Thanks for your, as ever, invaluable input
P.S. Disagreeing with your point of view does not meann I am not indulging in 'rational or meaningful discussion'. You need to learn that!
Last edited by f1_fan; Aug 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 22
From: K
Not really though, is it? As someone earlier pointed out, its so we can hopefully get a return on the money we give, e.g. hopefully they'll purchase some of our fairly mediocre military equipment.
The problems are; the 'aid' very rarely reaches the people who need it, and secondly we don't don't seem to be get an awful lot back from it.
So it has failed on both counts, unyet we still continue to supply it
The problems are; the 'aid' very rarely reaches the people who need it, and secondly we don't don't seem to be get an awful lot back from it.
So it has failed on both counts, unyet we still continue to supply it
(this obviously excludes emergency aid)
Last edited by hodgy0_2; Aug 8, 2013 at 01:57 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,538
Likes: 0
From: Please excuse my Spelling - its not the best !!
It certainly would be an interesting experiment if the UK said we for the next 5 years we are not giving any new aid out, we are only going to pay 50% what commitment we have agreed to. We will pay the other 50% at a later agreed date.
Do I believe it would harm international relations / business, or the way the UK is looked upon by other countries, NO.
Richard
Do I believe it would harm international relations / business, or the way the UK is looked upon by other countries, NO.
Richard
