Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
That's a bold move. I'm sure he won't be happy about that.
most Hindus are vegetarian. They want to stop the spread of islamification, so if anything, they'd be protesting that these places ARE serving Halal meat, surely.
troll all you like
I'll probably just get some pick 'n' mix.
might get a pint.
You've made me SO angry.
I say we go over there with a gunboat and forcibly build some more railways
Am a firm believer in aid, but we shouldn't help countries that can afford to help themselves.
we had this while stupid discussion about six months ago didn't we?
and get your point, but cash is a finite resource
no limits on how much we can hallucinate
because that's not what foreign aid is.
But sure, you're entitled to your opinion and all that.
then I remembered what a gigantic troll you are.
I'd like to weigh in here. I spend four or five days a month in villages where it's absolutely blindingly obvious that what we're doing is having a substantial effect. I also have masses of stats on the impact of our programme (ie british taxpayer money) on all sorts of areas (nutrition, having enough to eat, protection from flooding, women's rights etc) which show a massive impact. Not sure where you're getting your evidence of corruption from - you really think no-one in the aid industry has thought of ways around this?
you are paying for my internet in the sense that my wages come out of taxpayer money. aid work is a profession. and its a difficult one. there's no problem with paying people to do aid work. same as paying doctors etc.
it is an industry. what else would you call it?
I think you'd need to spend about five minutes there (say the journey from Calcutta Airport to the town) to realise that India is stuffed to the gils with very poor people. Killer stat (and watertight, numbers crunched by Andy Sumner at IDS, have a google): there are more poor people in India than in all countries in Sub-Saharan Africa combined. If you want aid to reduce poverty you have to direct it to where there are poor people. There's more poor people in India than in any other country in the world. It's also, I would say, quite an easy country to turn finance for aid into success. But that last part is just my semi-expert opinion, whereas most of the rest of what I'm saying is statistical.
Though tbh it's not like we have 2 million under 5s who die from preventable diseases each year in this country.
we need people to die from something otherwise we will all be fucked very, very quickly.
We can reduce the serious impact of disease, reducing suffering and allowing people to focus more on education. This will increase economic growth, knowledge of contraception, and women's rights, meaning lower birth rates in the first place.
1)Yeah, it's heading in the right direction, but that doesn't mean everyone over there is suddenly rich. Hence the millions of under-5 deaths and mass poverty. Its GDP per capita is only equivalent to a few thousand pounds per year, and much of that will be concentrated in a relatively few wealthy people.
2)I think the finance minister says they don't want it. How about the poor people?
3)No need to resort to insults, thanks.
1) Kinda irrelevant to my point, really.
2) Sure. But far far fewer, and poverty in the UK is much less severe.
do you think guilt is an irrational response? do think English people should be proud of the empire? do you think knowledge of the Empire should effect how britain conducts itself in international affairs?
out of interest, why do you think pride is acceptable but guilt is irrational? do you think (put very crudely) the good that Britain did outweighs the bad?
where were you born, btw?
*we need people [stop being so greedy and ignorant] otherwise we will all be fucked very, very quickly.
not sure about your point regarding population size though? is your financial obligation (ie you're a uk taxpayer so legally it is) but obviously that's not quite what you meant. you mean you think it shouldn't be. that's a normative statement, and fair enough. i disagree completely though. i find it very hard to understand that kind of approach. looking around i suspect you're trolling so lets leave it there.
I think he was pointing out that you were factually wrong
as a UK taxpayer (unless you're a tax dodger?), it is your obligation
(this is semantics of course)
doesn't really matter at all
This guy is the director of IDS, which is either the first or second most important think tank on aid in the UK depending on who you talk to. These guys do know what they're talking about when it comes to the practicalities of running an aid programme.
Unusually stylised from him; usually a lot more academic.
Is it wrong to cut UK aid to India?
Today’s announcement that the UK is to end financial aid to India by 2015 will re-ignite the debate about aid to middle income developing countries.
It's a difficult one.
Is India rich? No--its GDP/capita is a third of China's and a sixth of Brazil. India is still a very poor country. You won't see it so much if you go to Delhi or Mumbai but go one hour out of town and you will be shocked.
Is India using its domestic resources as well as it can for poverty reduction? No, but it is trying to get it right--hence the debate over the massive National Food Security Bill.
Why should a country with a space programme get aid? As I have said before the space programme is as much about weather and land quality mapping as about anything else.
Is UK aid "peanuts" for India as a Indian Minister said in February? In absolute terms, yes. But it is an invaluable source of experimentation, piloting, access to knowledge, and risk taking.
What if the Indian government does not want aid? Well, obviously it could easily say "no thanks".
For every poor country, not just India, the future is in domestic resource mobilisation, not aid.
Just try telling that to the millions of Indian mothers trying to keep their babies alive.
Maybe it's not so difficult.