Cameron trapped by overseas aid mantra
Dear David Cameron,
A sense of bemusement still surrounds your recent announcement that only the NHS and international development funding are protected from cuts in a future Conservative government. While I understand the political importance of these two issues, I really don’t think that these two areas deserve special protection. In fact, I could reasonably argue that they should be the first on the list of potential savings.
Today, you are yet again having to defend plans to increase spending on international development despite the recession. Unveiling the ‘One World Conservatism’ Green Paper, you will stress your commitment to meeting the United Nations target of spending 0.7% of national income on international development by 2013 and will say it would be a serious long-term mistake to drop the pledge because major global threats such as terrorism and climate change will get worse unless tackling poverty is a priority. Your policies include using aid vouchers to give poor people and communities choice over the help they receive, introducing ‘payment by results’ for aid agencies, carrying out “a root-and-branch review of which countries receive aid from Britain” (with a view to ending bilateral assistance to China) and giving “far greater prominence to promoting conflict prevention and resolution”. The future focus of international aid will be on promoting “property rights, the rule of law, accountable government, a vibrant private sector, effective public services, stability and security, and access to finance and global markets”. However, some charities have expressed doubts about some of your ideas. Oxfam, for example, said that while vouchers might sound like a way to give choice to poor people, in many parts of the world there were simply no health or education options to choose from, while International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander said the Tory focus on private investment would divert money away from improving the state sector.
Climate change and terrorism linked to international development – that’s a bit tenuous, isn’t it? Even if climate change is happening and is a serious problem, we need to be dealing with industry and business leaders as much as Third World governments. Unless the economic arguments can be made in favour of dropping coal power and making other environmentally friendly changes, they simply won’t happen. Terrorism also seems to be running at a tangent to overseas aid. Before we start sending aid workers round the world waving ’Isn’t Britian wonderful’ banners, perhaps we should look at our own foreign policies and immigration policies to understand why terrorism remains such a threat. Promoting accountable governments has plenty of potential to upset Third World governments as do property rights – which, let’s face it, most dodgy regimes and dictators are quite happy to do without. Furthermore, I have no idea how ‘payments by results’ will work in some of the poorest areas of the world, seeing as reliable data and objective criteria don’t exist in the same way that they do in a UK school or hospital. Above all else, what are you going to do if an aid organisation doesn’t deliver or a Third World government doesn’t play ball – are you really going to cut their funding and leave them high and dry? Is that politically sound and morally justifiable? I want value for money in international aid as much as you do, but it’s a lot easier to take money off a crappy, mismanaged and inefficient Whitehall quango than it is cutting aid projects to the poorest communities on the planet.
I’m happy to ignore Oxfam, seeing as they wouldn’t understand political impartiality even if it bit them in the a***, and Wee Dougie hasn’t exactly been a glowing sucess as Secretary of State. What concerns me is that even if there is money being wasted or poorly spent, you still won’t cut the international aid budget. If the scary numbers about future public spending reductions that I read about in the papers are somewhere close to the mark, there is simply no reason to protect overseas aid if the British taxpayer is being badly let down. I know that Labour have a strong grip on the issue of povery both at home and abroad, but that doesn’t mean you should cave in before you’ve even looked at the government accounts.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“If the scary numbers about future public spending reductions that I read about in the papers are somewhere close to the mark, there is simply no reason to protect overseas aid if the British taxpayer is being badly let down.”
Yet another reason not to give this posturing mountebank my vote. Blu Labour, indeed.
The commentors on ConHome tend to get really annoyed by this stuff too.
I cannot understand Daves’ commitment to the astrology of man-made global warning. Even he should have been alerted to the environmental scam when the foremost expert on polar bear population was dis-invited to a global conference because his scientifically proven findings were, “unhelpful”.
Too much of our aid goes to nations that are corrupt even by Parliamentary standards, don’t like us very much, or simply do not need our money. Aid to India, a country with a rapidly-growing economy, should cease, as it’s about time India took responsibility for it’s own. How the Indian Gov’t can scream about neo-colonialism and still hold out the begging bowl is beyond all logic. It’s the same story with the Chinese. Dave needs to be reminded that, “Charity begins at Home”. At the moment, Spreading largesse to the world’s poor is as ludicrous as acting as the World’s policeman.
You are absolutely right about OXFAM.
“it would be a serious long-term mistake to drop the pledge because major global threats such as terrorism and climate change will get worse unless tackling poverty is a priority”
Sounds like a protection racket to me: give us your money or else we’ll swamp you with refugees to pay for in the UK or we’ll bomb you to bits with our terrorist muslim fanatics.
Maybe its just me, but when I’m threatened, my usual reaction is to tell the entity in question to ‘go f*ck itself’ before enthusiastically working to destroy it. So now, *which* countries was this money for again?
Charity begins at home. We’ve got plenty of people in this country who need help. Think about them Dave!
“Sounds like a protection racket to me: give us your money or else we’ll swamp you with refugees to pay for in the UK or we’ll bomb you to bits with our terrorist muslim fanatics.”
Not really. If you pay the Mafia, there’s every chance your shop WON’T burn down – it’s in their interests to protect their ‘investment’ after all.
Whereas we pay, and STILL get the refugees and fanatics…
The other funny thing is that two of the nations we are giving aid to, China and India, have truly independent, domestically manufactured nuclear arsenals and space programs developed enough to aim for the moon by 2020. We don’t even have that in the poor old UK.
So, in the nicest possible way: WTF???
Looks like an interesting thread at ConHome.
http://tinyurl.com/lb9gbd
I had this to say:
“Any aid must be geared towards beducation & contraception or else it is worse than wasted in terms of encouraging overpopulation with babies born to miserable & very short lives.
I do not think that we will find some magic way of feeding a rampantly growing population. Far better to equip people in the third world with the means of limiting their families. As they become more prosperous, mainly through trade, they will do so just as we did during the 20th century. I do give general support to systems like Fair Trade & so on, if people make the choice to encourage the world’s poor to work their way out of poverty we should do what we can to make sure that their work pays. I’m aware of the hiccups but overall I consider it a force for good, as is all trade, essentially.
Where do you stand on contraception? I hope you do not engage in pointless grandstanding like the Vatican, certain Islamists, etc. In my view it is one of the best things Obama has done that he has removed the ban on aid to organisations which promote contraception… including abortion which can sometimes be a regrettable necessity if there is simply no realistic future for the baby if it is born, but misery.”
Obviously the “you” is aimed at Montgomerie.
I think the spending commitment was wrong because it implies that the status quo is good & all is well in the world of foreign aid, which it plainly isn’t given the levels of waste, etc. I think some good is being done & more could be done if priorities were shifted towards sound & evidence-based ones which will really help to make developing countries more prosperous. Accordingly I am not a firm foe of foreign aid in principle, I just think it should know its place as one of many devices that can be deployed, not only by governments, but also by western consumers.
Aid = b*******. As somebody pointed out, we are giving most of our aid to two countries that have space programmes, huge militaries and vast business enterprises. In the case of India, they can make a toilet in space flush but they can’t provide a toilet for every family they have on earth. Their problem is priorities not wealth.
Britain’s aid industry is nothing but a publically subsidised re-hash of the old Victorian, patronising charities of the past. Just as those charities did nothing to change Britain’s poverty problems, they are not succeeding overseas either. They need to have the plug pulled on them.
The UK’s overseas aid should look like this only:
1) International Rescue: A crack force run by the RAF of Galaxy heavy lifters and helicopters at a military base and on short-notice standby for any major disaster. They should be backed up by an Amazon.com-type logistical support network that can dispense food, tents etc. super quick and on demand.
2) Business Force 21C: This is a venture capital, business innovation and investment force dedicated to one goal: servicing the Bottom of the Pyramid market (BOP) with investment and business services.
3) Smart 21C: This is Britain’s connected up science and education force that links with universities and science parks in developing countries.
4) Freedom 21C: Freedom 21C supports all democratic governments and cultural activities.
And that’s it: no more ninnies from charities, effete foreign office geeks, DfID cocktail party junkies, space-wasting diplomats.
This tells you ,(if we did not know it already)all you need to know about Cameron,he is trying to be too nice to “clag holes with”We must get the Labour out ,but the alternative………?
“…. global threats such as terrorism and climate change will get worse unless tackling poverty is a priority”
Someone should point out that there is a direct correlation between poverty and power. The more power is available – the lower the poverty levels. The policies of the Tories – as well as the Lib Dems and Labour – are not only helping to ensure that the worlds poor remain poor by driving up the cost of power, they are going a considerable way to ensure that we’ll be joining them.
Shaun said it – we are borrowing money to give it to two nations that are funding their own nuclear weapons programs and indulging in space exploration – while we feed their people.
God we are stupid.
And if Cameron can’t see that then he is not fit to be leader.
Crikey, not had this much agreement with one of my letters since… well… yesterday when I said Gordon Brown was a complete ****.
Sounds like both party leaders still have their work cut out to convince people that they deserve the keys to Number 10.
“And if Cameron can’t see that then he is not fit to be leader. “
He isn’t stupid. He can see it. He either thinks we can’t, or doesn’t care what we think.
THAT makes him unfit to be leader.
I observe in the One World Conservatism paper a claim that they will review which countries receive aid, perhaps with a view to which will or will not receive ongoing support & which will get more or less (or maybe none).
Perhaps China & India will be dealt with.
I am suspecting I will find more than a bit to oppose in a Cameron government’s agenda. It is slightly in the air but I doubt very much whether I’ll cease my endless campaign of slagging off.
We need to admit we can’t afford international aid for the duration of at least one parliament, and as Shaun has said completely stop helping nations like China and India. iirc, I think we also give aid to Russia.
As for alternatives, taking Africa as an example we’d be better off stopping CAP, stop the likes of Spain from plundering their fishing waters, absolving the continent from copyright and patent laws for their internal markets, and decorating their trees with the gently swinging corpses of the Catholic priests muddying the waters. Maybe knock off a few of their more unpleasant leaders too – it shouldn’t take too many before the message that having dictatorial ambitions is seriously bad for your health sinks in.
That would see a marked improvement for most Africans in a shorter span than frittering Danegeld to the leaders of the poorer nations.
@Bob Macdonald – I’m with you Bob. My membership of the Tory Party is up for renewal next month. I am seriously thinking about whether I will be renewing it. Charity, especially in such a deep recession, definitely starts and ends at home. What is Cameron thinking of?
I cannot understand Daves’ commitment to the astrology of man-made global warning. Even he should have been alerted to the environmental scam when the foremost expert on polar bear population was dis-invited to a global conference because his scientifically proven findings were, “unhelpful”.
Both sides of GW argument are filled with people I’d cheerfully feed to the sharks. The science tells us GW is happening and we’re responsible for a lot of it, sadly the likes of the IPCC and green weenie brigade can’t tolerate any dissent – the polar bear expert being one of many examples – and those trying to evade the facts use that, along with some of the dodgier science(the moment I hear someone say ‘climate model’ I start wishing for a grand piano to land on them), to say it’s entirely false.
It’s horrific how both sides have take a somewhat serious subject and abandoned all common sense in one of the most retarded examples of willy-waving I’ve ever seen.
Sounds like both party leaders still have their work cut out to convince people that they deserve the keys to Number 10.
As Clint says in Unforgiven “deserving ain’t in it”
It’s all about the least worst leader, and whilst Browns in charge of Labour the Tories could have a zombie Pol Pot in charge and manage a comfortable victory.
I think the days of deserving leaders are gone, instead we get Conservatives Got Talent and Strictly New Labour vying for popular opinion. Unfortunately, I think we’re at the start of a path that leads to an authoritarian post-democratic Britain.
In relation to Global Warming and “Climate Change”, I’m glad to see a bit of steam pick up behind the dissenting campaign what with recent articles in The Speccie together with a number of Bloggers throwing their weight behind it.
I’m disappointed that Dave appears to have accepted that the science is settled. Might it be too cynical to suggest that although Dave may have his private concerns, he knows that without the “Climate Change” extortion (or Tax if you prefer) the Country’s economic position would be significantly bleaker than it is now? Quite a long shot, but he’s a smart guy, he knows what side his carbon emission is buttered.
In terms of cuts- cuts in NHS spending doesn’t necessarily mean less Doctors or Nurses. It just means reducing the waste. I can’t think of an Executive Department that wouldn’t benefit from these waste-saving cuts.
I recently went to a talk at Policy Exchange about progressive politics. It was quite interesting and each panel member gave their view of what ‘progressive politics’ meant but not a single person mentioned happiness. All they related to was economic and material wealth which as I see it does not make people very happy. Past the basics of clean water, access to food and health provisions then there seems to be a peak of happiness. Just think of all the major economic centres of the world – filled with the most miserable work obsessed people.
Secondly the economic growth matra has certianly hit a brick wall and will continue to do so as the slow realisation that all capital comes from natural capital and we have far exceeded that. For Cameron to say that development of third world countries will lead to a better environment it nonsense unless it is done sustainably and not based on fossil fuel technology. If all the people in the world lived like the average American we would need more than three Earths to sustain the population so development as it is certainly not sustainable.
The climate issues have to be dealt with quickly and effectively as we are already going to lose coral reefs in about 40 years time due to the synergisitic effects of climate change on ocean systems.
‘Shaun said it – we are borrowing money to give it to two nations that are funding their own nuclear weapons programs and indulging in space exploration – while we feed their people.’
And the irony is that in some cases we’re borrowing the money from the same countries we’re then giving it to.
So not only is our country’s wealth being transported to these countries through globalism, but we’re borrowing some of it so we can then….. give it back?!?
Hey, how about this for an overseas aid mantra: “Trade not aid”?
absolving the continent from copyright and patent laws for their internal markets
Sorry, Obsidian – there are two problems here.
Firstly, as was shown in the Soviet Union and its techno-lag with the ‘free West’, IP protection incentivises innovation and thus produces more of it. Secondly if Africans can, say, produce AIDS drugs or whatever free of royalty to the rights holder, it creates a smuggling paradise. Where migrants, drugs and arms flow today, medicines, technology and smugglers will flow tomorrow. At the expense of our corporations. A better system would be an insistence that any Western co trading there charge prices commensurate with the environment. $2000 a mo for a westerner with AIDS is nowt, $2000 for a Zimbabwean is beyond their life’s wealth. This would minimise smuggling but in a global market if X (plus shipping to Z) is cheaper in county Y than it is in country Z, its going to get smuggled.
Unfortunately, I think we’re at the start of a path that leads to an authoritarian post-democratic Britain.
Here tho, I agree with you, while the twin pillars of the Daily Mail and ‘Won’t Somebody Think Of The Children!’ drive our political culture. The irony is that that the press can insist black should be white while clearly arguing that black is black and white is white but nobody is in a position to highlight their enormous hypocrisy or the impossibility of what they want. Except maybe the blogosphere, which is a different ruck, I admit…
I’m disappointed that Dave appears to have accepted that the science is settled
Well that’s another Arts Graduate not understanding that things are NEVER ’settled’ in science, only *presumed* correct until a BETTER EXPLANATION/theory comes along. Science may be settled when we unify quantum and Newtonian physics but I don’t think Dave has done that, no matter how clever
Brains TraceyMichael Grove may look.Hey, how about this for an overseas aid mantra: “Trade not aid”?
Wonderful idea, Mark. Now if you can just persuade a few tens of million of pan-European farmers to lobby against giving them truckloads of free money, you’re on a winner.
Shaun, I agree smuggling would be an issue, but something of a minor one if the correct threats are imposed – enough smuggling and they lose the right to use others IP without payment.
My problem with enforcing IP on Africa is that ignores the fact the West pretty much developed by ignoring it during their more warlike periods. If I recall correctly the first recorded example of patent theft was good old margarine!
It was only when a level of stability was achieved that respecting IP drove economies upwards, prior to that it formed a barrier so that governments selectively ignored enforcement. Africa is in a somewhat similar state to what the European powers were, and right now IP forms a similar barrier but they don’t have the option we had of turning blind eyes to breaches.
Plus, charging in accordance to a nations ability to pay will just mean the Pharma’s won’t bother selling there – they already do that with some drugs for ‘poor peoples sickness’, one drug to handle dysentry has never gone on sale simply because theres no profit in it despite the number of deaths caused by it.
I just don’t like seeing us removing the same ladder we climbed up from others. Never have been a massive fan of the do as we say, not as we do brigade, which is what we’ve turned into in the west. A large chunk of Africa is centuries behind us, how would we fare applying modern economic ideology to ourselves centuries past? Badly I should think.
Plus, charging in accordance to a nations ability to pay will just mean the Pharma’s won’t bother selling there – they already do that with some drugs for ‘poor peoples sickness’, one drug to handle dysentry has never gone on sale simply because theres no profit in it despite the number of deaths caused by it.
Well no, this is where the West *can* act by obliging companies to provide medicines within those terms to those areas in order to retain, say, the right to produce or sell their products to the West (strong example). In short, since those companies b*llocks are over here and since we’re only obliging them to make a bit less money in places that don’t really matter, we are totally free to, collectively in the West, give that scr*tum a squeeze.
We can’t fairly pull the ladder up behind us. If we do, then we forfeit the right to criticise things like female g*nital mutilation, forced marriage, cannabilism and the rest since we are then saying ‘you do it your way’. Therefore all we can do is provide a better ladder, be it nuclear power (intersting Guardian enviro porn today about Thorium Fusion, abandoned due to its lack of weaponisation potential), clean coal, or based on squads of garden gnomes in a treadmill (Robin Cook is dead, he won’t object!). The problem is that these things need to be CHEAPER AND MORE EFFECTIVE than the shitty methods – whether we add to their expense by bombing them when they get built or not – or else people will just vote with their wallets (which, implicitly they’ll do anyway) and make the ‘wrong’ choice.
Gah. Also I’ve not seen conclusive science not underwritten or driven by belief and the desire to prove a theory and not, as it should be, to disprove a hypothesis to even justify talking about this. I’m as well off discussing the merits of a loop in chicken entrails with a Voodoo priestess… at least that way I can live out my James Bond fantasies!
Plus, charging in accordance to a nations ability to pay will just mean the Pharma’s won’t bother selling there – they already do that with some drugs for ‘poor peoples sickness’, one drug to handle dysentry has never gone on sale simply because theres no profit in it despite the number of deaths caused by it.
Well no, this is where the West *can* act by obliging companies to provide medicines within those terms to those areas in order to retain, say, the right to produce or sell their products to the West (strong example). In short, since those companies b*llocks are over here and since we’re only obliging them to make a bit less money in places that don’t really matter, we are totally free to, collectively in the West, give that scr*tum a squeeze.
We can’t fairly pull the ladder up behind us. If we do, then we forfeit the right to criticise things like female g*nital mutilation, forced marriage, cannabilism and the rest since we are then saying ‘you do it your way’. Therefore all we can do is provide a better ladder, be it nuclear power (intersting Guardian enviro porn today about Thorium Fusion, abandoned due to its lack of weaponisation potential), clean coal, or based on squads of garden gnomes in a treadmill (Robin Cook is dead, he won’t object!). The problem is that these things need to be CHEAPER AND MORE EFFECTIVE than the sh*tty methods – whether we add to their expense by bombing them when they get built or not – or else people will just vote with their wallets (which, implicitly they’ll do anyway) and make the ‘wrong’ choice.
Gah. Also I’ve not seen conclusive science not underwritten or driven by belief and the desire to prove a theory and not, as it should be, to disprove a hypothesis to even justify talking about this. I’m as well off discussing the merits of a loop in chicken entrails with a Voodoo priestess… at least that way I can live out my James Bond fantasies!