when you spend it on tanks and missiles! 😀

You’ve got to hand it to Dave for his lateral, blue sky thinking

Cameron said he would like to see more of the aid budget diverted to defence in the period before the next spending review by building up the “conflict pool” that is already used by the ministry of defence and international development department.

He told reporters: “Can we do more; can we build on this approach? I am very open to ideas like that. We have our moral responsibilities for tackling poverty around the world. We also have our national security responsibilities for mending conflict states and helping with development around the world.”

So… roughly translated from Cameron-speak: Oi! Jonny foreigner! I know we’ve previously been paying to build you schools, and wells, and food and stuff, but my back-benchers are getting uppity, so we’re going to buy more bombs and guns and planes and guns and tanks and missiles and guns, to keep you bloody natives in your place

Only in the modern day Tory party could this still be classed as ‘Aid’ 😆

Or, given that he’s in India:

I know we’ve previously been paying to build you schools, and wellsdevelop a space program

I dunno though, couldn’t a true peace-keeping mission* be classed as aid?

*yes, I know it’s vague and easily twisted term

Only in the modern day Tory party could this still be classed as ‘Aid’

Its extraordinary isn’t it? And I was just trying to remember how the last lot labelled arms to Indonesia, bribing (allegedly) the Saudi’s, supporting Gaddaffi etc? Probably not “Aid” but presumably something similar? So at least the Tories haven’t plagarised the term! 😉

thm – I know. When Dave said he wanted to be the Heir to Blair, he wasn’t joking. I love the Blairite terms like “conflict pool”. It could have come straight out of….

😆

…and wasn’t Blair Thatcher’s grandchild? So the wheel continues to turn……. 😉

Odd he took a principled stance and then he gave in. keeping the budget was a noble thing to do IMHO this is neither noble nor principled.
Thanks thm trying to make sure we discuss blair or labour when Cameron does something. Flashheart used to do this as well. Any chance you could comment on this decade or issue without reference to labour?

Isn’t spending the aid budget directly on arms just cutting out the middle-man?

Junkyard – Member
Any chance you could comment on this decade or issue without reference to labour?

You know I would love to do that, its just that my “accuracy fetish” makes it so difficult to ignore comments such as….

Only in the modern day Tory party

…not really fair to leave that unchallenged, now is it?. But good old binners understands the irony there, even if others may not!

[exit stage left….muttering, “accuracy is not important, repeat, accuracy is not important…”]

Pax Brittania – Peace through superior firepower.

I can’t say I was that surprised, the tories are almost beyond parody these days

I expect we’ll be ” aiding ” a lot of folk in oil-rich areas now so look on the bright side we might get some revenue back

Might I suggest a quick Google of the Military Stabilisation and Support Group and the FCO’s Stabilisation Unit – that might give a better idea of where Cameron and Co may be going with this “aid budget siphoned off to defence” suggestion. It’s not about buying more tanks and guns, it’s about enhancing the military’s ability to assist in peaceful ways (eg. specialist Royal Engineer trades building schools, digging wells, etc) the prevention or recovery from conflict – MSSG is one of the few areas in Defence that is likely to increase in size.

On the other hand, this is, of course, STW – never let some homework get in the way of a knee jerk reaction… 🙄 😀

The problem with mixing aid and military is that it puts the NGOs at risk. This has been a hugely controversial topics over the last 5 years or so and it’s always a big fight to stop it. From the government side it looks like an easy way to win hearts and minds but from the NGO side it prevents the development of trust that is essential for their security

Could your accuracy fetish link to labour cutting aid to spend directly on the army like this ? even your reply admits it was not aid I think your accuracy fetish has been broken by your labour hating. Why do the Tories like you and flash do this just say whether you think it is a good or abad idea. I know your views on labour. 3 posts in and no one is any wiser as to what your view is on what he has done.

JY – I wonder if where I have an accuracy fetish, you have a “lets look for an argument fetish”? Please note the very first line of my initial post. Please also note the lack of a smiley. And then consider, whether someone with an accuracy fetish would make such a statement if they were a Tory lover (sic)?

teamhurtmore – Member
Its extraordinary isn’t it?

Please let me know if this is not clear. It was the first post!

edit: meanwhile I will get back to writing my Rolls Royce case study – hence my interest in the OP (albeit it lateral)

as you are on the forum I will ask

You said it was extraordinary – by which i assume you mean

1. Beyond what is ordinary or usual: extraordinary authority.
2. Highly exceptional; remarkable: an extraordinary achievement.
3. Employed or used for a special service, function, or occasion: a minister extraordinary; an extraordinary professor.

It seems you have csaid it is unusual or uncommon rather than say what you think about the decision
I could describe Dianas death as extraordinary or the belgian gold job or the Pyrce jury [ do you think you know what i think about these because I said they were extraordinary?]
So again I know you think it is “rare”, uncommon but I dont know whther you think it is good or bad
Is it a good decision or a bad one?

I am not arguing as I would need to know what you think to argue 😉

There was also a good File On Four docco recently which discussed the wisdom of pre-accession grants being given to EU candidate countries like Turkey for transport infrastructure upgrades and then being counted as ODA.

As cynical as the whole thing seems, I think it’s at least partly just an admission of an existing truth- we already give aid to states that have significant budgets for things that are less essential than aid, which some would say is no different from just giving them money for any purpose they want (since it reduces the state’s healthcare or schools burden, they can then spend more on hookers and blackjack).

Not convinced it’s so simple, I think India would probably still have a space program, they’d just have less schools.

Probably true but it is hard to think aid is going to the most needy when the state we are helping has space programme rather than clean water or helathcare. The issue there is priorities as much as need.

That’s a circular statement, though: If developing countries governments’ were any good at setting priorities, they wouldn’t be developing countries’ governments (for the most part). Neither do I think that there is perfect fungibility between aid funds and valueless government expenditure.

fungibility

😯
bit late for that sort of carry on, kona

That’s a circular statement, though If developing countries governments’ were any good at setting priorities, they wouldn’t be developing countries’ governments

I think the causes are a bit more complicated than to simply blame the govts priority setting skills

I didn’t say poor administration was a cause of underdevelopment, let alone the only one. Governments’ inability or unwillingness to prioritise appropriate objectives is a major cause of those countries staying underdeveloped. If aid money is only spent in countries in which governments prioritized appropriately, you’d spend nothing in the countries which need it most.

Doesn’t he mean, rather than we give you aid to spend on stuff bought from either firms in your country or someone elses, we’ll write the cheque out payable to BAE?

Thats very cynical b r. Next you’ll be suggesting that the Americans have been using food aid as an indirect way of subsidisng their agribusiness, and driving through a GM friendly policy on behalf of companies like Monsanto. And I’m sure theirs no truth in that at all 😉

I’m going to show a very naive side here but…

On Sat I was in TKMAXX and at the till I was asked if I’d like to donate a pound to help alleviate child poverty here in the UK.

We spend £10b? a year helping abroad.

Why can’t we set our own house in order yet must be seen by the Jone’s to be good Statesmen and BrandUK to the world?

Because photogenic brown babies, especially when there’s a Coldplay track playing in the background, are ‘the deserving poor’. And helping them assuages upper middle class guilt as their Ocado delivery turns up, and Jemima shows off her new Boden outfit.

Whereas People on council estates are ‘shirkers’ or as we prefer to refer to them nowadays … scum. And they should be punished accordingly! The feckless ****s!!!

Does that answer your question?

Ah yes- everyone ‘poor’ is automatically scum/feckless. Nothing to do with they are poor because the government privatised water, power etc which are then ramped up in price and everyone is taxed to the hilt to ‘hit our eco targets’.

When the government/order collapses. I wonder if ‘call me Dave’ will acknowledge is part in the incompetence of theirs and the previous Labour government.

Binners

Thats very cynical b r. Next you’ll be suggesting that the Americans have been using food aid as an indirect way of subsidisng their agribusiness, and driving through a GM friendly policy on behalf of companies like Monsanto. And I’m sure theirs no truth in that at all

No different to the Tanzanian air-traffic control system farce/bribe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/06/bae-tanzania-arms-deal

Why can’t we set our own house in order yet must be seen by the Jone’s to be good Statesmen and BrandUK to the world?

Because we need an underclass to blame for all the problems in the UK

Wow, Binners that is an extraordinary ( 😉 ) comment! Yes there is very real poverty and hardship in the UK which needs addressing. But still in relative terms, there is still marked differences between this and the nature of poverty in India and similar countries. To suggest that the only/main reason that we give aid to India or elsewhere is for photogenic brown baby opportunities is so far wide of the mark as to be verging on the ridiculous.

Of course, “aid” comes with conditions attached and has always been linked with other strategic and commercial interests, it has never been 100% altruistic. And yet, in the global scale, UK aid to India is relatively speaking targeted at exactly at the areas that most people would associate with the word “aid” rather than its other more extraordinary ( 😉 ) uses. We donate more aid to India than anywhere else we are India’s biggest source of aid. Furthermore independent studies highlight the relatively high level of this aid that goes to education, health, nutrition, water, sanitation etc. Hence the importance attached to the Nov 2012 announcement relating to the cuts in aid coming in 2015.

Now I’m sure I remember that the puppet US-installed govt of Iraq was ‘billed’ for the cost of the invasion and occupation, and ‘agreed’ to repay it. This is a similar sort of process.

We donate more aid to India than anywhere else we are India’s biggest source of aid. Furthermore independent studies highlight the relatively high level of this aid that goes to education, health, nutrition, water, sanitation etc.

And we are now seeing the long term results of that aid..

If we have had any part to play in India’s economic development and in improvements in areas such as education and health, then we should take pride in that. The fact that vinny’s T shirt exists, however, goes someway to explaining why we are now planning to scale back our aid to India .

On Sat I was in TKMAXX and at the till I was asked if I’d like to donate a pound to help alleviate child poverty here in the UK.

And did you?

What do you think? Its all well and good helping out disadvantaged people, but those next set of forks aren’t going to pay for themselves! 😉

@davetrave – is the purpose of the “Military Stabilisation and Support Group and the FCO’s Stabilisation Unit” to stop the regimes left in place from descending into the seeming chaos being reported from Afghanistan today (shooting of young boys escaping abuse by Police/Military and random firing into an orchard because “they are all Taleban”!).

If it is, then I would suggest it needs reform and funding, it would seem unlikely that the country will develop without some stability and freedom from fear of random/organised acts of violence on the population.

Good or bad decision? Need more info.

Did you Google them and read about their roles – proactive as well as reactive… You also miss the point, “aid” as mentioned above is about wells, schools, low level infrastructure, etc. That is what MSSG do – if you read my post properly, rather than cherry picked, you will hopefully have picked up that I referred in particular to Royal Engineer specialists (water experts, builders/tradesmen, etc) as a key part of the Group. I don’t believe the RE has any exeperience or experts in law and governance, I believe that’s the FCO SU’s role…

MSSG is fit for purpose, if the regime/government is falling in to chaos as you suggest then it’s the FCO SU and its guidance in governance that it provides to the GIRoA that needs reform.

Unfortunately MSSG was created too late to be in a position to have had significant impact at the start of the conflict – the unit was formed as a result of lessons learnt from the early days of involvement in Iraq 2003-onwards.

As I said before – homework… 🙄