Why are we "Ring Fencing" Foreign Aid?
Discussion
SPS said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The primary purpose of overseas aid is to provide competitive advantage for UK businesses operating in recipient jurisdictions. National businesses exporting goods and services is a key component of a robust economy, hence most major economies (ie Italy, the US, CIS) prioritise it.
Hardly rocket science.
Well the primary purpose is well and truly screwed then. India have even told us they don't want or need it.Hardly rocket science.
And I do remember that a deal for the UK to sell jet fighters to them fell apart and the French got the contract.
Why is FA going to countries that have nuclear and space programs???
I even seem to remember from somewhere that Bloody China gets Aid too!
I may be wrong on the last one.
In reality, the Overseas Aid budget is generally perceived to support Britain's political and commercial interests abroad. The irritating fact is that, between the Treasury, the FCO and BiS they don't do anything like enough to quantify this benefit.
ClaphamGT3 said:
SPS said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The primary purpose of overseas aid is to provide competitive advantage for UK businesses operating in recipient jurisdictions. National businesses exporting goods and services is a key component of a robust economy, hence most major economies (ie Italy, the US, CIS) prioritise it.
Hardly rocket science.
Well the primary purpose is well and truly screwed then. India have even told us they don't want or need it.Hardly rocket science.
And I do remember that a deal for the UK to sell jet fighters to them fell apart and the French got the contract.
Why is FA going to countries that have nuclear and space programs???
I even seem to remember from somewhere that Bloody China gets Aid too!
I may be wrong on the last one.
In reality, the Overseas Aid budget is generally perceived to support Britain's political and commercial interests abroad. The irritating fact is that, between the Treasury, the FCO and BiS they don't do anything like enough to quantify this benefit.
In today's harsh reality only blinkered politicians perceive (or pretend to do so) that to be even remotely "true".
L
And I do remember that a deal for the UK to sell jet fighters to them fell apart and the French got the contract.
Why is FA going to countries that have nuclear and space programs???
I even seem to remember from somewhere that Bloody China gets Aid too!
I may be wrong on the last one.All the Mailists fall on the India/Typhoon example of why The Overseas Aid budget is flawed rather in the manner of my five year-old daughter continually telling me that, just because the local bakery had run out of pain au chocolats when we popped in one morning, they don't sell them any more.
In reality, the Overseas Aid budget is generally perceived to support Britain's political and commercial interests abroad. The irritating fact is that, between the Treasury, the FCO and BiS they don't do anything like enough to quantify this benefit.The better analogy would may be that the bakery ran out of the French stuff because the sold them to someone else for more even though you thought that by supporting their bakery every week that you would be able to get them - er that will be no then!
In today's harsh reality only blinkered politicians perceive (or pretend to do so) that to be even remotely "true".No, you didn't read my post properly.
In reality, large numbers of businesses will have experienced the beneficial effects of overseas aid but the problem is that the benefit is poorly quantified by the government departments responsible for administering it. Individual businesses tend to record the value that they get as a result of it and diplomatic missions in recipient jurisdictions can articulate the benefits but it isn't rolled up into an overall ROI, hence it is relatively easy for the ill-informed to throw rocks at the whole concept
SPS said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
SPS said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The primary purpose of overseas aid is to provide competitive advantage for UK businesses operating in recipient jurisdictions. National businesses exporting goods and services is a key component of a robust economy, hence most major economies (ie Italy, the US, CIS) prioritise it.
Hardly rocket science.
Well the primary purpose is well and truly screwed then. India have even told us they don't want or need it.Hardly rocket science.
And I do remember that a deal for the UK to sell jet fighters to them fell apart and the French got the contract.
Why is FA going to countries that have nuclear and space programs???
I even seem to remember from somewhere that Bloody China gets Aid too!
I may be wrong on the last one.
In reality, the Overseas Aid budget is generally perceived to support Britain's political and commercial interests abroad. The irritating fact is that, between the Treasury, the FCO and BiS they don't do anything like enough to quantify this benefit.
In today's harsh reality only blinkered politicians perceive (or pretend to do so) that to be even remotely "true".
In reality, large numbers of businesses will have experienced the beneficial effects of overseas aid but the problem is that the benefit is poorly quantified by the government departments responsible for administering it. Individual businesses tend to record the value that they get as a result of it and diplomatic missions in recipient jurisdictions can articulate the benefits but it isn't rolled up into an overall ROI, hence it is relatively easy for the ill-informed to throw rocks at the whole concept
ClaphamGT3 said:
L
And I do remember that a deal for the UK to sell jet fighters to them fell apart and the French got the contract.
Why is FA going to countries that have nuclear and space programs???
I even seem to remember from somewhere that Bloody China gets Aid too!
I may be wrong on the last one.All the Mailists fall on the India/Typhoon example of why The Overseas Aid budget is flawed rather in the manner of my five year-old daughter continually telling me that, just because the local bakery had run out of pain au chocolats when we popped in one morning, they don't sell them any more.
In reality, the Overseas Aid budget is generally perceived to support Britain's political and commercial interests abroad. The irritating fact is that, between the Treasury, the FCO and BiS they don't do anything like enough to quantify this benefit.The better analogy would may be that the bakery ran out of the French stuff because the sold them to someone else for more even though you thought that by supporting their bakery every week that you would be able to get them - er that will be no then!
In today's harsh reality only blinkered politicians perceive (or pretend to do so) that to be even remotely "true".No, you didn't read my post properly.
In reality, large numbers of businesses will have experienced the beneficial effects of overseas aid but the problem is that the benefit is poorly quantified by the government departments responsible for administering it. Individual businesses tend to record the value that they get as a result of it and diplomatic missions in recipient jurisdictions can articulate the benefits but it isn't rolled up into an overall ROI, hence it is relatively easy for the ill-informed to throw rocks at the whole concept
There have been some high level scandals about bribes given to countries by some of the big companies, a requirement in many before a contract is signed. SPS said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
SPS said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The primary purpose of overseas aid is to provide competitive advantage for UK businesses operating in recipient jurisdictions. National businesses exporting goods and services is a key component of a robust economy, hence most major economies (ie Italy, the US, CIS) prioritise it.
Hardly rocket science.
Well the primary purpose is well and truly screwed then. India have even told us they don't want or need it.Hardly rocket science.
And I do remember that a deal for the UK to sell jet fighters to them fell apart and the French got the contract.
Why is FA going to countries that have nuclear and space programs???
I even seem to remember from somewhere that Bloody China gets Aid too!
I may be wrong on the last one.
In reality, the Overseas Aid budget is generally perceived to support Britain's political and commercial interests abroad. The irritating fact is that, between the Treasury, the FCO and BiS they don't do anything like enough to quantify this benefit.
In today's harsh reality only blinkered politicians perceive (or pretend to do so) that to be even remotely "true".
In reality, large numbers of businesses will have experienced the beneficial effects of overseas aid but the problem is that the benefit is poorly quantified by the government departments responsible for administering it. Individual businesses tend to record the value that they get as a result of it and diplomatic missions in recipient jurisdictions can articulate the benefits but it isn't rolled up into an overall ROI, hence it is relatively easy for the ill-informed to throw rocks at the whole concept
Foreign aid helps oil the wheels that would be a little stiff if the law was followed.
The India contract was not quite so simple as stated in the comic newspapers. We were, in essence, outbid. However, there was compensation with regards other contracts.
Further, if we want to sell sophisticated electronics then by far the best countries to approach are those with space programmes. Stands up to logic and reason.
If calling it foreign aid gives anyone a problem then change the name to business subsidy. Much more accurate.
Whether you think the taxpayer should fund big business is another matter of course. However, were it not for foreign subsidy/business aid it is clear that certain markets would be blocked to us.
I'm not sure what croissants have to do with foreign aid other than to point out that certain other countries, especially those that favour said sweetmeats, are not averse to oiling business transactions, and have been very successful at it with regards their armaments industry. I'm not suggesting we should arm the world but the fact remains that if we didn't act with largess to these countries, we'd be the poorer.
The only thing that is totally bewildering is that the likes of the DM know this, it is hardly a secret and there are published official figures to show that we get about five times return on our 'investment' in foreign aid, yet they still go on and on about it.
Derek Smith said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
L
And I do remember that a deal for the UK to sell jet fighters to them fell apart and the French got the contract.
Why is FA going to countries that have nuclear and space programs???
I even seem to remember from somewhere that Bloody China gets Aid too!
I may be wrong on the last one.All the Mailists fall on the India/Typhoon example of why The Overseas Aid budget is flawed rather in the manner of my five year-old daughter continually telling me that, just because the local bakery had run out of pain au chocolats when we popped in one morning, they don't sell them any more.
In reality, the Overseas Aid budget is generally perceived to support Britain's political and commercial interests abroad. The irritating fact is that, between the Treasury, the FCO and BiS they don't do anything like enough to quantify this benefit.The better analogy would may be that the bakery ran out of the French stuff because the sold them to someone else for more even though you thought that by supporting their bakery every week that you would be able to get them - er that will be no then!
In today's harsh reality only blinkered politicians perceive (or pretend to do so) that to be even remotely "true".No, you didn't read my post properly.
In reality, large numbers of businesses will have experienced the beneficial effects of overseas aid but the problem is that the benefit is poorly quantified by the government departments responsible for administering it. Individual businesses tend to record the value that they get as a result of it and diplomatic missions in recipient jurisdictions can articulate the benefits but it isn't rolled up into an overall ROI, hence it is relatively easy for the ill-informed to throw rocks at the whole concept
There have been some high level scandals about bribes given to countries by some of the big companies, a requirement in many before a contract is signed. SPS said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
SPS said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The primary purpose of overseas aid is to provide competitive advantage for UK businesses operating in recipient jurisdictions. National businesses exporting goods and services is a key component of a robust economy, hence most major economies (ie Italy, the US, CIS) prioritise it.
Hardly rocket science.
Well the primary purpose is well and truly screwed then. India have even told us they don't want or need it.Hardly rocket science.
And I do remember that a deal for the UK to sell jet fighters to them fell apart and the French got the contract.
Why is FA going to countries that have nuclear and space programs???
I even seem to remember from somewhere that Bloody China gets Aid too!
I may be wrong on the last one.
In reality, the Overseas Aid budget is generally perceived to support Britain's political and commercial interests abroad. The irritating fact is that, between the Treasury, the FCO and BiS they don't do anything like enough to quantify this benefit.
In today's harsh reality only blinkered politicians perceive (or pretend to do so) that to be even remotely "true".
In reality, large numbers of businesses will have experienced the beneficial effects of overseas aid but the problem is that the benefit is poorly quantified by the government departments responsible for administering it. Individual businesses tend to record the value that they get as a result of it and diplomatic missions in recipient jurisdictions can articulate the benefits but it isn't rolled up into an overall ROI, hence it is relatively easy for the ill-informed to throw rocks at the whole concept
Foreign aid helps oil the wheels that would be a little stiff if the law was followed.
The India contract was not quite so simple as stated in the comic newspapers. We were, in essence, outbid. However, there was compensation with regards other contracts.
Further, if we want to sell sophisticated electronics then by far the best countries to approach are those with space programmes. Stands up to logic and reason.
If calling it foreign aid gives anyone a problem then change the name to business subsidy. Much more accurate.
Whether you think the taxpayer should fund big business is another matter of course. However, were it not for foreign subsidy/business aid it is clear that certain markets would be blocked to us.
I'm not sure what croissants have to do with foreign aid other than to point out that certain other countries, especially those that favour said sweetmeats, are not averse to oiling business transactions, and have been very successful at it with regards their armaments industry. I'm not suggesting we should arm the world but the fact remains that if we didn't act with largess to these countries, we'd be the poorer.
The only thing that is totally bewildering is that the likes of the DM know this, it is hardly a secret and there are published official figures to show that we get about five times return on our 'investment' in foreign aid, yet they still go on and on about it.
It's not just the Daily M - the Telegraph is also at it!!!
Circa £27 million in aid to the second largest economy in the World - China!
I know that is "small change" but the principle that we will get major economical benefits back from that is pretty ridiculous is it not!
Edited by SPS on Sunday 26th July 11:35
SPS said:
"Lies, damned lies and statistics"!
It's not just the Daily M - the Telegraph is also at it!!!
Circa £27 million in aid to the second largest economy in the World - China!
I know that is "small change" but the principle that we will get major economical benefits back from that is pretty ridiculous is it not!
Depends. It's not just the Daily M - the Telegraph is also at it!!!
Circa £27 million in aid to the second largest economy in the World - China!
I know that is "small change" but the principle that we will get major economical benefits back from that is pretty ridiculous is it not!
Edited by SPS on Sunday 26th July 11:35
If you're one of the 'business men' getting the £27 million in your pocket, I'm sure you'll take every chance to tell everybody how beneficial 'aid' is to us all
Elroy Blue said:
SPS said:
"Lies, damned lies and statistics"!
It's not just the Daily M - the Telegraph is also at it!!!
Circa £27 million in aid to the second largest economy in the World - China!
I know that is "small change" but the principle that we will get major economical benefits back from that is pretty ridiculous is it not!
Depends. It's not just the Daily M - the Telegraph is also at it!!!
Circa £27 million in aid to the second largest economy in the World - China!
I know that is "small change" but the principle that we will get major economical benefits back from that is pretty ridiculous is it not!
Edited by SPS on Sunday 26th July 11:35
If you're one of the 'business men' getting the £27 million in your pocket, I'm sure you'll take every chance to tell everybody how beneficial 'aid' is to us all
If overseas aid advantages British businesses then those businesses will pay more in corporation tax and VAT, they'll employ more people who will pay tax and NI, they will pay higher salaries and bonuses to staff and larger dividends to share holders, which will be taxed etc, etc all of which benefits the UK and our citizens significantly.
ClaphamGT3 said:
If overseas aid advantages British businesses then those businesses will pay more in corporation tax and VAT, they'll employ more people who will pay tax and NI, they will pay higher salaries and bonuses to staff and larger dividends to share holders, which will be taxed etc, etc all of which benefits the UK and our citizens significantly.
Big If....ClaphamGT3 said:
If overseas aid advantages British businesses then those businesses will pay more in corporation tax and VAT, they'll employ more people who will pay tax and NI, they will pay higher salaries and bonuses to staff and larger dividends to share holders, which will be taxed etc, etc all of which benefits the UK and our citizens significantly.
The aid budget has risen by £3.5 billion under Osborne. It's £13 billion and rising. It's utter poppycock to suggest we get this all back. But I'm sure it's all very nice if you're one of those getting your wallet filled.ClaphamGT3 said:
If overseas aid advantages British businesses then those businesses will pay more in corporation tax and VAT, they'll employ more people who will pay tax and NI, they will pay higher salaries and bonuses to staff and larger dividends to share holders, which will be taxed etc, etc all of which benefits the UK and our citizens significantly.
Not so sure that's correct. The evidence is that this does not happen. Nice thought though.
Elroy Blue said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
If overseas aid advantages British businesses then those businesses will pay more in corporation tax and VAT, they'll employ more people who will pay tax and NI, they will pay higher salaries and bonuses to staff and larger dividends to share holders, which will be taxed etc, etc all of which benefits the UK and our citizens significantly.
The aid budget has risen by £3.5 billion under Osborne. It's £13 billion and rising. It's utter poppycock to suggest we get this all back. But I'm sure it's all very nice if you're one of those getting your wallet filled.ClaphamGT3 said:
If overseas aid advantages British businesses then those businesses will pay more in corporation tax and VAT, they'll employ more people who will pay tax and NI, they will pay higher salaries and bonuses to staff and larger dividends to share holders, which will be taxed etc, etc all of which benefits the UK and our citizens significantly.
Sorry - it's more than a big if - it's somewhere up with very wishful thinking.Halcyon days indeed but not in our lifetimes - sadly!
If it is bribery for commercial gain then we're doing it a bit wrong. Our 2014 exports to Ethiopia were £108 million and our aid to Ethiopia was £376 million.
It might be working well for certain companies and individuals but I don't see why the taxpayer should be subsidising them in such a round about way. Why can't they do their own bribery?
It might be working well for certain companies and individuals but I don't see why the taxpayer should be subsidising them in such a round about way. Why can't they do their own bribery?
is it seen to be big on the national platform to be giving out money ?
We should be using that money here investing in our infrastructure - What the politicians forget is that it isnt their money - if it was they would soon stop it....
We vote the politicians in and they do this to us - spend money on something that the country doesnt see the benefit of. something actually outside of the country.
Get a grip and start to invest in Britain. Start to invest and we can build a better country.
We should be using that money here investing in our infrastructure - What the politicians forget is that it isnt their money - if it was they would soon stop it....
We vote the politicians in and they do this to us - spend money on something that the country doesnt see the benefit of. something actually outside of the country.
Get a grip and start to invest in Britain. Start to invest and we can build a better country.
ruggedscotty said:
is it seen to be big on the national platform to be giving out money ?
We should be using that money here investing in our infrastructure - What the politicians forget is that it isnt their money - if it was they would soon stop it....
We vote the politicians in and they do this to us - spend money on something that the country doesnt see the benefit of. something actually outside of the country.
Get a grip and start to invest in Britain. Start to invest and we can build a better country.
Although the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems all had overseas aid commitments in their manifestos We should be using that money here investing in our infrastructure - What the politicians forget is that it isnt their money - if it was they would soon stop it....
We vote the politicians in and they do this to us - spend money on something that the country doesnt see the benefit of. something actually outside of the country.
Get a grip and start to invest in Britain. Start to invest and we can build a better country.
Also, to AJS' point, I would imagine that Ethiopia is one of the aid recipients where the aid is a genuine provision of aid
Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Monday 27th July 08:19
ClaphamGT3 said:
Elroy Blue said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
If overseas aid advantages British businesses then those businesses will pay more in corporation tax and VAT, they'll employ more people who will pay tax and NI, they will pay higher salaries and bonuses to staff and larger dividends to share holders, which will be taxed etc, etc all of which benefits the UK and our citizens significantly.
The aid budget has risen by £3.5 billion under Osborne. It's £13 billion and rising. It's utter poppycock to suggest we get this all back. But I'm sure it's all very nice if you're one of those getting your wallet filled.Why is spending money on people who had a **** start in life (by virtue of where they were born) and who want to make a better life, more of a waste than spending far more money on people who were born into a liberal society with free education, free healthcare and lots of opportunities and still just want to freeload?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff